Palo Alto Research Center Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2020

2019002334 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 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.
14/148,435 01/06/2014 Eric Huang PARC-20130013-US-NP 4265
35699 7590 07/02/2020
PVF -- PARC
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 FIFTH STREET
DAVIS, CA 95618-7759
EXAMINER
AUGUSTINE, VICTORIA PEARL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2020 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):
jenny@parklegal.com
sy_incoming@parklegal.com
tia@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ERIC HUANG, RONG ZHOU, and
DANIEL DAVIES1
________________

Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before JOHN G. NEW, RYAN H. FLAX, and
RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.142. Appellant identifies Palo Alto Research Center
Incorporated as the real party-in-interest. App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

2
SUMMARY
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–14, 16, 17, and 19–22 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to nonstatutory subject
matter.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a system for generating a
product recommendation by translating transaction data to graph
representation for input to a graph analytics application. Abstr.

REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal and recites:
1. A computer-executable method, comprising:

generating, by a processor, a table containing topology
information of a graph, wherein each edge of the graph
represents a transaction and connects a vertex representing a
respective customer with a vertex representing a respective
product;

generating files containing one or more headers that
include at least graph metadata describing a plurality of tables
with graph information;

generating files containing data from the plurality of tables
including the topology information table;

Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

3
storing the generated files with table data at a first storage
location;

storing the generated header files at a second storage
location separate from the first storage location;

loading graph metadata stored separately from topology
information as needed based on processing of the graph; and

generating data identifying a selected vertex representing
an associated product based on the graph processing.

App. Br. 38.

ISSUES AND ANALYSES
We adopt the Examiner’s findings, reasoning, and conclusion that the
claims on appeal are directed to nonstatutory subject matter. We address the
arguments raised by Appellant below.

A. Appellant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea
Issue 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the claims are
directed to an abstract idea and, therefore, patent-ineligible subject matter.
App. Br. 17.
The Examiner finds that the steps recited in the claims describe the
concept of storing data in a graph to generate a product recommendation,
which the Examiner finds corresponds to concepts identified as abstract
ideas by the courts, such as “an idea of itself,” as described in Alice Corp.
Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 218 (2014) (quoting Gottschalk v.
Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that one
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

4
example of “an idea of itself” is “collecting information, analyzing it, and
displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.” Id. (quoting Elec.
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The Examiner finds that, in this instance, the claims recite receiving user
data, processing previously stored data, and generating a product
recommendation. The Examiner therefore finds that the concept to which
the claim is directed is not meaningfully different from those previously
found by the courts to be abstract ideas. Id. As such, concludes the
Examiner, the claims recite an abstract idea and, further, do not include
additional elements that, when considered both individually and as an
ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea. Id.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that the claims also recite “[a]
computer processor being used to store graph data as table and files.” Final
Act. 3. The Examiner finds that the “computer processor” is recited with a
high level of generality as performing generic computer functions routinely
used in computer applications. Id. The Examiner notes that this generic
computer processor, recited as performing generic computer functions that
are well understood, routine, and conventional, amounts to no more than
implementing the abstract idea via a computerized system. Id. at 3–4.
Even more specifically, the Examiner finds that the claimed computer
processor is recited as representing data in graph form to generate a product
recommendation. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that such use of generic
computer components to process data according to programmed software
algorithm does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer
implementation of the abstract idea. Id. The Examiner therefore concludes
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

5
that this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception (i.e., the abstract idea). Id. The Examiner also finds that
there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the
functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, but rather
merely provides conventional computer implementation. Id.
Appellant argues that the claims on appeal are directed to a “solution
necessarily rooted in computer technology,” and are therefore not directed to
an abstract data. App. Br. 17 (emphasis omitted) (quoting DDR Holdings,
LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Appellant
notes that the PTO Eligibility Guidelines state that “[w]hile improvements
were evaluated in Alice Corp. as relevant to the search for an inventive
concept (Step 2B), several decisions of the Federal Circuit have also
evaluated this consideration when determining whether a claim was directed
to an abstract idea (Step 2A).” Id. (alteration in original). Furthermore,
Appellant argues, § 2106.05(a) of the MPEP provides “[e]xamples that the
courts have indicated may show an improvement in computer-functionality”
and that one such example is “modification of conventional Internet
hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage.”
Id. at 17–18 (alteration in original) (citing DDR).
Appellant argues that, as in DDR Holdings, the claimed embodiments
are necessarily rooted in computer technology. App. Br. 18. Appellant
points to the Specification as disclosing that the claimed embodiments may
be used in analyzing digital data using a graph analytics application to
perform collaborative filtering. Id. (citing Spec. ¶ 24). Appellant further
contends that the Specification discloses that the exemplary graph analytics
application requires as input “a text file which is formatted in a very specific
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

6
way, with certain constraints and formatting requirements.” Id. (emphasis
omitted) (citing Spec. ¶ 25).
Appellant points to the Specification as recognizing that generating
and analyzing voluminous amounts of data can be “a time-consuming,
inefficient process, especially when large relational tables are involved.”
App. Br. 19 (quoting Spec. ¶ 31). Appellant asserts that the embodiments of
the claimed invention solve the inefficiencies involved in mining digital data
by separately generating and storing a topology table and graph metadata for
a graph, in which:
[T]he system may generate a bipartite graph with purchase
transaction data extracted from a retailer’s database. A bipartite
graph is a graph with vertices that can be divided into two disjoint
sets U and V such that every edge connects a vertex in set U to a
vertex in set V. Vertices representing products make up one set
of the bipartite graph and vertices representing customers make
up the other set of the bipartite graph. The graph represents the
retailer's database of transaction data. [A graph analytics
application] may then traverse the bipartite graph to generate a
product recommendation.
Id. (quoting Spec. ¶ 30). Appellant therefore contends that, as in DDR, the
claimed system provides a solution necessarily rooted in computer
technology (i.e., data mining and collaborative filtering), and is not directed
to an abstract idea.
The Examiner responds that, unlike Appellant’s claims on appeal,
DDR addressed a technological problem specific to a particular
technological environment by implementing a specific solution for that
technological environment and different from the routine or conventional
use for that environment. Ans. 3 (citing DDR, 773 F.3d at 1258–59)
(finding “the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

7
are manipulated to yield a desired result—a result that overrides the routine
and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a
hyperlink”). The Examiner finds that Appellant’s claims are more akin to a
generic computer programmed with conventional steps to be carried out in a
conventional manner, and therefore fail to recite an inventive concept. Id.
The Examiner finds that Appellant has not shown that translating does
anything more than conventionally reformatting data. Id. (citing Versata
Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(quoting Alice, 573 U.S at 223) (holding an inventive concept requires more
than simply stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it” or
“apply it with a computer”).
The Examiner further finds that the claims recite generating data,
storing the generated data into files, and loading previously stored data for
further processing. Ans. 4. The Examiner concludes that the manner in
which the claims recite this translating is not commensurate with the
portion(s) of the Specification argued by Appellant. Id. Specifically, the
Examiner finds, the features upon which Appellant relies (viz., a specifically
formatted text file, processing voluminous amounts of data beyond
simpleton embodiments, etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s).

Issue 2
Appellant argues that the claims are directed to an improvement in
computer functionality. App. Br. 20. Appellant argues that, as in Enfish,
LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the focus of the
claims on appeal is on improvements in computer capabilities, which
includes the ability of the computer to analyze a voluminous amount of
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

8
digital data from large relational tables, and identify, in a graph model, a
vertex which represents a product to be recommended to a specific user. Id.
(citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36). According to Appellant, the claims are
directed to a specific implementation which solves the problem of analyzing
very large input graph datasets, e.g., in conventional systems, “when the
input graph dataset is on the order of several hundred gigabytes, one cannot
even sort the data on a standard machine because of the time, disk space, and
memory space required.” Id. (quoting Spec. ¶ 3). Appellant asserts that the
claimed system improves computer functionality by storing the graph
topology separately from the graph metadata, which “facilitates efficient
processing of the graph by allowing the system not to load the metadata until
needed.” Id. at 20–21 (quoting Spec. ¶ 49).
Appellant argues that, rather than performing database joins (as in the
conventional systems), the claimed system traverses a bipartite graph to
generate a product recommendation, which is much faster than performing a
database join with data from relational tables, especially as the size and
volume of the data in the relational tables increases (e.g., on the order of
several hundred gigabytes). App. Br. 21 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 30–31). Appellant
contends that, by providing a specific translation system, the instant claims
provide a scalable solution to the problem of culling a voluminous amount
of data into an input graph dataset which can be analyzed by a graph
analytics application to perform a concrete task. Id.
The Examiner responds that, rather than resembling the claims in
Enfish, the instant claims are more akin to those for collecting, analyzing,
and displaying information found to be patent ineligible in Electric Power
Group, or the claims directed to image data processing discussed in Digitech
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

9
Image Technologies.. Ans. 4–5 (citing Electric Power Grp., 830 F.3d at
1353–54; Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758
F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that “a process that employs
mathematical algorithms to manipulate [data or] information to generate
additional information is not patent eligible”)). Furthermore, the Examiner
finds, nothing in the claims, when viewed in light of the Specification,
requires anything other than an off-the-shelf, conventional computer used
for collecting and processing/analyzing various information/data. Id. at 5.

Issue 3
Appellant next argues that the claims use limited rules in a process
specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in a
conventional industry practice. App. Br. 21. Appellant points to McRO,
Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016),
in which, Appellant argues, the Federal Circuit held the claims at issue to be
patent eligible because the claim(s) “uses the limited rules in a process
specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in
conventional industry practice” and were thus “not directed to an abstract
idea.” Id. (quoting McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316). Appellant further quotes
McRO as holding that: “it is the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the
use of the computer, that ‘improved [the] existing technological process.’”
Id. at 21–22 (quoting McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314 (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. 208
at 223)).
Appellant contends that, similar to the invention of McRO,
embodiments of the claimed invention incorporate “rules” (e.g., generating
topology information of a graph; generating header files of graph metadata;
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

10
and storing the generated topology information and the generated header
files of graph metadata separately) that improve the technological process of
data mining of a voluminous digital data (e.g., loading graph metadata stored
separately from topology information and traversing a bipartite graph instead
of performing time-consuming, inefficient database joins of large relational
tables). App. Br. 22. Appellant asserts that incorporation of these rules
improves the technological process of mining digital data for useful
information, and of collaborative filtering. Id. (citing Spec. ¶¶ 24–31, 49).
The Examiner responds that claim 1, when viewed as a whole, focuses
on translating data into a graph for storage and subsequent retrieval for
further processing, which is an effect and not an improvement in relevant
technology, e.g., chip architecture, etc. Ans. 5 (citing Spec. ¶ 4). The
Examiner finds that, insofar as Appellant maintains that the claims provide
certain efficiencies, the claims do not recite any particular volume of data,
and thus simple embodiments would meet the scope of the claims. Id. at 5–
6. The Examiner also finds that the claims are not limited to a particular
type of graphing technique (or even a specific data translation technique) as
argued by Appellant. Id. Rather, the Examiner finds, the claims merely
recite generic data processing to translate input data into graph data (which
the Examiner finds is similar to the case in Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S.
63 (1972), and then loading the stored graph data via a generic processing
technique using the computer as a generic tool invoked to implement the
abstract concept. Id. (see Benson, 409 U.S. at 65).

Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

11
Issue 4
Appellant next argues that the claims are patent eligible because they
are directed to a technological improvement of an improved computer
system with multiple benefits. App. Br. 23. Appellant invokes Visual
Memory LLC v. Nvidia Corp., 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) as holding
that claims “directed to a technological improvement: an enhanced computer
memory system” were patent eligible and that “the specification discuss the
advantages offered by the technological improvement.” Id. (quoting Visual
Memory, 867 F.3d at 1259, 1260).
Appellant also points to the Federal Circuit’s finding that the
specification in Visual Memory disclosed that “using a programmable
operational characteristic can also improve the main memory” and that
“[t]aken together, the ‘multiple mode operation’ of the ’740 patent confers a
substantial advantage by ‘allowing different types of processors to be
installed with the same subject memory system without significantly
comprising their individual performance.’” App. Br. 23–24 (quoting Visual
Memory, 867 F.3d at 1256, 1256–57 (internal citations omitted)).
Appellant argues that the Specification, similar to that described in
Visual Memory, discloses advantages offered by the technological
improvement. App. Br. 24. Appellant contends that, in a conventional
system, translating voluminous data to an appropriately formatted input
graph dataset which can be easily read and processed by a graph analytics
application can be limited, i.e., “one cannot even sort the data on a standard
machine because of the time, disk space, and memory space required.” Id.
(quoting Spec. ¶ 3). In contrast, argues Appellant, the embodiments
disclosed in Appellant’s Specification provide a system for efficiently
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

12
translating transaction data into a graph representation for input to a graph
analytics application. Id. (citing Spec. ¶ 3).
Appellant asserts that, like the system in Visual Memory, the claimed
system confers a substantial advantage by allowing the system to efficiently
generate graph topology and metadata, and to translate the generated
information as a graph input dataset to a graph analytics application, which
can subsequently analyze the graph, and identify a specific vertex (i.e.,
provide a product recommendation to a specific customer based on
voluminous transactional data from multiple relational databases involving a
given retailer). App. Br. 25. This is possible, Appellant contends, because
of the system’s ability to perform the translation, which eliminates the need
to perform database joins with data from multiple other large relational
tables. Id.
The Examiner responds that, unlike the claims at issue in Visual
Memory, Appellant’s claims do not recite any particular implementation of
memory, but merely invoke a computer, in its generic capacity, to perform a
data translation, which itself is recited as an effect and not achieved by any
particularly claimed technical solution. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds that the
computer is then invoked to store and retrieve data for processing without
specifically reciting any particular storage or data processing technique, as
was the case in Visual Memory. Id. (see Visual Memory, 867 F.3d at 1257).

Issue 5
Finally, Appellant argues that, contrary to the Examiner’s finding, the
claims on appeal are unlike the claims in Electric Power Group. App. Br.
25. Appellant argues that, unlike Electric Power Group, Appellant’s claims
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

13
on appeal advance an “assertively inventive technology for performing [the
claimed] functions.” Id. at 26 (quoting Electric Power Grp., 830 F.3d at
1354). Appellant asserts that the Specification expressly discusses the
advantages offered by the technological improvement by efficiently
translating transaction data to a graph input dataset which can be processed
by a graph analytics application, without being limited by the size of the
original transaction data. Id. (citing Spec. ¶¶ 3, 4, 24–31). Unlike the claims
in Electric Power Group, argues Appellant, the claimed method confers a
substantial advantage by allowing the system to consequently process the
data by loading the metadata separately from the topology information, and
by identifying a selected vertex, which corresponds to, e.g., a product
recommendation for a specific customer in a database of a retailer. Id.
We have considered, but are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
In performing an analysis of patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we follow
the framework set forth by the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative
Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012). We are also
mindful of, and guided by, the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84(4) Fed. Reg. 50
(January 7, 2019) (the “2019 Guidance”).
Appellant’s independent claim 1 recites: “A computer-executable
method, comprising: ….” Following the first step of the Mayo analysis, we
find that the claims are directed to a method or process and therefore fall
into one of the broad statutory categories of patent-eligible subject matter
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the next step of the Mayo analysis, we determine whether the claim
at issue is directed to a nonstatutory, patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

14
nature, a phenomenon of nature, or an abstract idea. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 70–
71. If the claim is so directed, we next consider the elements of the claim
both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether
additional elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible
application. Id. at 78–79; see also Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom,
Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Specifically, the Supreme Court
considered this second step as determining whether the claim recites 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.” Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73.
More specifically, in this second step of the Mayo analysis, we look to
whether the claim recites one of the judicially-created exceptions to
35 U.S.C. § 101, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural
phenomenon. See 2019 Guidance 54 (Step 2A, Prong 1). If we determine
that the claim recites a judicial exception, we then determine whether the
limitations of the claim reciting the judicial exception are integrated into a
practical application. Id. (Step 2A, Prong 2).
Finally, if we determine that the claim is directed to a judicially-
created exception to Section 101, we evaluate the claim under the next step
of the Mayo analysis, considering the elements of each claim both
individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether
additional elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible
application. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78–79; 2019 Guidance 56 (Step 2B).
“In cases involving software innovations, th[e] inquiry often turns on
whether the claims focus on ‘the specific asserted improvement in computer
capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

15
for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.’” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue
Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Enfish, 822
F.3d at 1335–36).
Claim 1 recites the steps of: (1) generating a table containing
topology information of a graph; (2) generating files that include metadata
describing a plurality of tables with graph information; (3) generating files
containing data from the plurality of tables including the topology
information table; (4) storing the generated files with table data at a first
storage location; (5) storing the generated header files at a second storage
location; (6) loading graph metadata stored separately from topology
information as needed; and (7) generating data identifying a selected vertex
representing an associated product. Each of these steps deals with the
manipulation and/or storage of information in a generic computer processor.
Appellant’s Specification discloses that a primary purpose of the
claimed method is
to provide recommendations to a customer. A retailer may sell
products to customers, and in order to provide recommendations
to customers, the system may perform collaborative filtering. But
collaborative filtering requires an analysis of customer
transaction data, including purchase data. The system may
examine a customer’s purchase item, and then determine the
purchases made by other customers who also purchased the same
item as the first customer. The system may then recommend an
item to the first customer. The customer transaction data may be
mixed with other data and stored in a relational database (or some
other format unsuitable for direct input to Hipergraph [a
commercially-available graph analytics application]).
Spec. ¶ 29. Specifically, Appellant’s Specification discloses that:
During operation, the system generates a transaction table to
store transaction data, a customer table to store customer data,
and a product table to store products data. The system then
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

16
generates, with data from the transaction table, a table containing
topology and edge identifier information and a table containing
edge attribute information. Next, the system generates one or
more headers that include data describing the customer table
and/or the product table and/or the table containing edge attribute
information. Subsequently, the system generates one or more
files containing the one or more headers and data from the tables,
in which the data describes a graph with edges representing
transactions and vertices representing customers or products.
The system then submits the one or more files as input to the
graph analytics application to generate a product
recommendation.
Spec. ¶ 4. The Specification further discloses that:
Embodiments of the present invention solve the problem of
translating transaction data to a format suitable for input to a
graph analytics application by automatically compiling the data
and translating the data to a graph model representation. A graph
translation system may extract data from a data source, such as a
relational table storing various types of data. The system
processes and projects the data into intermediate tables,
generates headers, and then writes the tables, headers, and
additional tables with data describing a graph topology and
associated edge attribute data into a suitably formatted text file.
The generated graph reflects transaction relationships found in
the extracted data. The graph translation system may then submit
the generated graph data as input to a graph analytics application
(e.g., Hipergraph) for analysis.
Id. ¶ 24. In summary, the method comprises extracting data from a source
(i.e., a databases), and creating intermediate tables (i.e., a transaction table, a
customer table, and a product table). From the intermediate tables headers
are generated as well as other necessary formatting information to describe a
graph that may then be submitted to a commercially-available graph
analytics program (i.e., Hipergraph) for analysis of the data contained
therein. Id.
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

17
However, the software that performs such tasks is identified in the
Specification as existing products. More specifically, Appellant’s
Specification discloses that:
In one implementation, the system utilizes data warehousing
software such as Hive built on top of Hadoop. Hive is a data
warehouse system for Hadoop. Hive facilitates easy data
summarization, ad-hoc queries, and the analysis of large datasets
residing in distributed storage with Hadoop-compatible file
systems. Hive provides a SQL [Structured Query Language]
interface to access the stored data. Hadoop is the storage layer.
Hadoop is a framework for the distributed processing of large data
sets across clusters of machines, pulling together the machines’
and CPU power. Hadoop provides for storage of data across the
clusters, and allows for scaling from a single server to thousands
of machines. It provides a scalable distributed file system that
spans all the nodes in the clusters. Retailers may store hundreds
of gigabytes of data in a Hadoop cluster. One may use Hive with
Hadoop and Bash scripting in order to automatically compile
data from typical relational database tables into a format
appropriate for Hipergraph. Bash is a Unix shell. Bash can read
commands from a script file and execute the commands within
the script.
…
The input to Hipergraph is a set of tables and headers generated
with Hive.
Spec. ¶¶ 26–27 (emphases added). In other words, Appellant’s Specification
discloses that, in an embodiment, commercially available or open-source
software applications (Hive, Hadoop, and Bash) can be used to generate the
intermediate tables and formatting data into a graph format suitable for
analysis by a graph analytics program such as Hipergraph.
Finally, Appellant’s Specification discloses that:
[W]ithout the translation process disclosed herein, one would
need to perform database joins with data from a relational table,
which is a time-consuming, inefficient process, especially when
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

18
large relational tables are involved. Rather than performing
database joins, the system traverses the bipartite graph with
Hipergraph. For example, Hipergraph may traverse the bipartite
graph to generate a product recommendation. Performing graph
traversal in order to generate a product recommendation is much
faster than performing a join with database tables.
Spec. ¶ 31. Appellant argues that the claimed method is therefore patent-
eligible because it is a “solution necessarily rooted in computer technology,”
and therefore represents an improvement in computer functionality, rather
than an abstract idea. See App. Br. 18–20.
We disagree. As an initial matter, Appellant’s Specification discloses
that the purpose of the claimed method is to provide purchase
recommendations to a consumer, based upon that consumer’s past
transaction history. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 29. As such, we conclude that the
claims are therefore related to a fundamental economic and conventional
business practice and, therefore, to an abstract idea. See Bilski v. Kappos,
561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Alice, 573 U.S. 219.
Appellant points to DDR in support of their contention that the
claimed method represents a solution to a problem (dealing with large
relational databases) that are necessarily rooted in computer technology. In
DDR, the claims of the patent-in-suit were directed to addressing the
problem of “retaining website visitors that, if adhering to the routine,
conventional functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol, would be instantly
transported away from a host’s website after ‘clicking’ on an advertisement
and activating a hyperlink.” DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257. The solution, recited
by the claims, was to “direct[ ] the visitor to an automatically-generated
hybrid web page that combines visual ‘look and feel’ elements from the host
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

19
website and product information from the third-party merchant’s website
related to the clicked advertisement.” Id.
The court in DDR therefore held that “[w]hen the limitations of the
’399 patent’s asserted claims are taken together as an ordered combination,
the claims recite an invention that is not merely the routine or conventional
use of the Internet.” Id. at 1259. Consequently, “the claimed solution is
necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks” and was patent
eligible. Id. at 1257.
However, we find that Appellant’s claims are closer to the claims at
issue in Electric Power Group. In Electric Power Group, the court found
that the claims of the patent-in-suit were directed to “the abstract idea of
monitoring and analyzing data from disparate sources.” 830 F.3d at 1352.
The court initially found that:
The focus of the asserted claims, as illustrated by claim 12 quoted
above, is on collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying
certain results of the collection and analysis. We need not define
the outer limits of “abstract idea,” or at this stage exclude the
possibility that any particular inventive means are to be found
somewhere in the claims, to conclude that these claims focus on
an abstract idea—and hence require stage-two analysis under
§ 101.
Id. at 1353. The court, proceeding thence to the first step of the Alice
analysis, found that “the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement
in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use
computers as tools.” Id. at 1354.
Continuing to the second step of the analysis, the court found that:
The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional
computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

20
conventional and non-generic arrangement of known,
conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the
claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions
“on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
Electric Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355. More specifically, the court found
that:
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…. We have
repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks
that are not even arguably inventive are “insufficient to pass the
test of an inventive concept in the application” of an abstract
idea.
Id. (citations omitted). The court continued:
Nor do the claims here require an arguably inventive distribution
of functionality within a network, thus distinguishing the claims
at issue from those in Bascom [Global Internet Servs., Inc. v.
AT&T Mobility LLC].… The claims in this case specify what
information in the power-grid field it is desirable to gather,
analyze, and display, including in “real time”; but they do not
include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of
gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of
anything but entirely conventional, generic technology. The
claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept in the
realm of application of the information-based abstract ideas.
Id. at 1355–56 (internal citation omitted).
We find that the claims on appeal are similarly directed to an abstract
idea. As explained supra, the claims recite steps of, briefly, generating and
formatting tables, storing them, and generating data. None of these steps
requires a specialized processor to perform and, furthermore, the steps can
be performed using commercially available software programs (e.g., Hive,
Hadoop, and Bash). See Spec. ¶¶ 26–27. Consequently, not only are these
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

21
steps performed using a generic computer processor, they do not alter or
require changes in the functionality of the computer itself. See, e.g.,
Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2020) (holding that, “[t]o be a patent-eligible improvement to computer
functionality, […] the claims [must] be directed to an improvement in the
functionality of the computer or network platform itself”).
Appellant argues that the claimed method is a faster and more
efficient way of producing data suitable for graph analytics than those
relying upon database joins with data from a relational table. See Spec. ¶ 31.
That may well be so, but it nevertheless does not raise the subject matter of
the recited claims above the level of an abstract idea, i.e., the organization,
manipulation, and presentation of data. That is because the claimed manner
of achieving that result does not alter the functionality of the computer, but
can be embodied using available software on a generic computer processor.
We find Customedia to be particularly instructive upon this point:
Customedia argues that by providing a reserved and dedicated
section of storage, the claimed invention improves the data
delivery system’s ability to store advertising data, transfer data
at improved speeds and efficiencies, and prevent system
inoperability due to insufficient storage. In short, by dedicating
a section of the computer’s memory to advertising data, the
claimed invention ensures memory is available for at least some
advertising data. This does not, however, improve the
functionality of the computer itself.
Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1363 (emphases added). Similarly, Appellant
argues that the claimed method “solves the problem of analyzing very large
input graph datasets …., [by] improv[ing] computer functionality by storing
the graph topology separately from the graph metadata, which ‘facilitates
efficient processing of the graph by allowing the system not to load the
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

22
metadata until needed.’” App. Br. 20–21 (quoting Spec. ¶ 49).
Nevertheless, the claimed method does not, Appellant’s arguments
notwithstanding, alter the claimed functionality of the generic processor
itself, but rather uses commercially available software to provide a more
efficient method of processing the abstract idea.
Appellant also points to Enfish and McRO as supporting the patent
eligibility of the claims on appeal. See App. Br. 20–22. We do not find
these arguments persuasive. In Enfish, the Federal Circuit emphasized that
the claimed invention (a self-referential table for a computer database) was
“directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate,
embodied in the self-referential table.” 822 F.3d at 1336 (emphasis added).
Specifically, the court held that “the self-referential table recited in the
claims on appeal is a specific type of data structure designed to improve the
way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory.” Id. at 1339.
We acknowledge that the court in Enfish stated that: “The
specification’s disparagement of conventional data structures, combined
with language describing the ‘present invention’ as including the features
that make up a self-referential table, confirm that our characterization of the
‘invention’ for purposes of the § 101 analysis has not been deceived by the
‘draftsman’s art.’” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339. Appellant argues that their
Specification similarly points out the advantages of the claimed methods
over other “conventional” practices, such as effecting database joins. See
App. Br. 20–21 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 31–32). Nevertheless, the court in Enfish
emphasized that the key question is “whether the focus of the claims is on
the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-
referential table for a computer database) or, instead, on a process that
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

23
qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a
tool.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36. We are consequently not persuaded that
Appellant’s claims are directed to altering the way a computer functions or
improving its functional capabilities, but, rather, are directed to conventional
means by which data is organized (generating tables of information and files
therefrom with conventional processors) and prepared for use by a graph
analytics application, using commercially-available software. As such, we
conclude that the claims are not directed to changing the functionality of the
computer, but are directed instead to the abstract idea of organizing and
storing information.
Similarly, in McRO, the Federal Circuit stated that the claimed
invention, a method of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization
and facial expressions in animated characters,
goes beyond merely “organizing [existing] information into a
new form” or carrying out a fundamental economic practice. The
claimed process uses a combined order of specific rules that
renders information into a specific format that is then used and
applied to create desired results: a sequence of synchronized,
animated characters.
McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315 (alteration in original) (citations omitted). By
contrast, Appellant’s claimed method is directed to “organizing [existing]
information into a new form,” i.e., generating tables and headers to prepare
information from a database for use in a graph analytics application. We are
consequently not persuaded that the holding of McRO necessitates a
conclusion that Appellant’s claimed method is patent-eligible.
Appellant next points to Visual Memory in support of its argument
that its claimed method is not directed to an abstract idea, noting that “the
Federal Circuit finds that the relevant claims ‘are directed to a technological
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

24
improvement: an enhanced computer memory system’ and that ‘the
specification discuss[es] the advantages offered by the technological
improvement.’” App. Br. 23 (quoting Visual Memory, 867 F.3d at 1259,
1260). The invention in Visual Memory was a “memory system with
programmable operational characteristics that can be tailored for use with
multiple different processors without the accompanying reduction in
performance.” Visual Memory, 867 F.3d at 1255. In holding that the claims
were patent eligible, the court in Visual Memory stated that:
As with Enfish’s self-referential table and the motion tracking
system in Thales[2], the claims here are directed to a
technological improvement: an enhanced computer memory
system. The ’740 patent’s claims focus on a “specific asserted
improvement in computer capabilities”—the use of
programmable operational characteristics that are configurable
based on the type of processor—instead of “on a process that
qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked
merely as a tool.”
Id. at 1259–60 (quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336).
But, as we have explained, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments that the claimed method is directed to an improvement to
computer functionality. Rather, we again conclude that the use of available
software to reorganize and format data for use by a graph analysis
application results in the claimed method being an abstract idea
implemented on a generic processor. And, while we acknowledge that the
court in Visual Memory states “[a]nd like the patents at issue in Enfish and
Thales, the specification discusses the advantages offered by the
technological improvement,” we are not, for the reasons explained,

2 Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

25
persuaded that Appellant’s Specification’s extolling of the benefits of the
claimed method rises to the level of explaining an improvement in computer
functionality, but, rather, we find it represents the benefits of a new and
efficient method of arranging and formatting data from a spreadsheet for use
in a commercially-available graph analysis program. We consequently
conclude that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Having identified the judicial exceptions recited by the claims, we
determine whether the limitations of the claims reciting the judicial
exceptions are integrated into a practical application. 2019 Guidance 54
(Step 2A, Prong 2). The 2019 Guidance provides additional context for this
analysis, stating that: “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a
practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a
manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that
the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial
exception.” Id. at 53.
We conclude that the claims are not integrated into a practical
application because the claims recite no additional limitations that extend the
scope of the claims beyond the abstract idea itself. In other words, the
language of the claims provides no meaningful limitation upon the abstract
idea of organizing and formatting data for use by a graph analysis
application, and merely claims the abstract idea itself. Our reviewing court
has repeatedly found that abstract concepts that merely collect, classify, or
otherwise filter data are patent-ineligible. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also In re TLI
Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Content
Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

26
1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1348–49. We
consequently conclude that the claims are not integrated into a practical
application.
Claims directed to a judicial exception may be patent eligible if they
recite additional elements that provide “significantly more” than the judicial
exception. 2019 Guidance 56 (Step 2B). We therefore turn next to
Appellant’s arguments that the claims recite significantly more than the
abstract idea to which they are directed.

B. Appellant argues that, assuming arguendo that the claims are directed
to an abstract idea, the claims as a whole amount to significantly more
than the abstract idea.

Issue 1
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings that “the computer is
recited to represent data in graph form to generate a product
recommendation” that “the use of generic computer components to process
data according to programmed software algorithm does not impose any
meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea” and
that generic computer functions are “well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities [that] amount to no more than implementing the
abstract idea with a computerized system.” App. Br. 27–28 (alteration in
original) (quoting Final Act. 3–4).
According to Appellant, the Examiner does not cite which specific
additional limitations are “well-understood, routine, and conventional,” nor
does Examiner explain why such additional limitations are “well-
understood, routine, and conventional.” Id. at 28. Appellant contends that
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

27
the Examiner’s allegedly conclusory findings are contrary to the guidelines
set forth in the USPTO’s April 19, 2018 memo Changes in Examination
Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter
Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) 3 (the “2018 Memo”).
Appellant alleges that the Examiner has failed to provide any of the
following required elements: (1) a citation to an express statement in
Appellant’s Specification; (2) a citation to a court decision; (3) a citation to a
publication; or (4) a statement of Office Notice. App. Br. 28 (citing 2018
Memo 3–4).

Issue 2
Appellant points to the Federal Circuit’s holding in BASCOM that an
“inventive concept may be found in non-conventional and non-generic
arrangement of additional elements in combination” and that an inventive
concept can be found in the ordered combination of claim limitations. App.
Br. 29 (quoting BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350).
Appellant argues that, similar to the situation in BASCOM, the claims
before us are directed to an inventive concept, namely, of enabling a system
to cull through a voluminous amount of data, generate topology information
and graph metadata information, input such generated (and separately
stored) information into a graph analytics application in an appropriate
format, and determine a vertex of the graph which may be of interest given
the graph input dataset (e.g., a product recommendation in the case of
transaction data of a retailer). App. Br. 30. Appellant contends that that the

3 Citing Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

28
additional limitations of the claims are neither generic nor conventional, and
are also a non-generic arrangement when placed in the network. Id.
The Examiner responds that nothing in the claims amounts to
significantly more than the abstract idea. Ans. 9. The Examiner finds that
the claims recite generic computer components (e.g., processor, logic, and
storage) and functions (e.g., generating, storing, and loading data). Id.
(citing buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(holding that the invocation of computers and generic functionality adds no
inventive concept). Furthermore, the Examiner finds, nothing in the claims,
when viewed in light of Appellant’s Specification, requires anything other
than an off-the-shelf, conventional computer used for collecting and
processing/analyzing various information/data. Id. Therefore, the Examiner
concludes, and unlike the claims considered by the Federal Circuit in Enfish,
Appellant’s claims are not directed to an improvement in computer
capabilities, but to the results of applying an abstract idea. Id.

Issue 3
Appellant argues that the claims are also directed to a specific tangible
application. App. Br. 31. Appellant points to Classen Immunotherapies,
Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) in arguing that the
claims are “directed to a specific, tangible application.” Id. (quoting
Classen, 659 F.3d at 1066).
Appellant argues that, similar to the patent-eligible claims of Classen,
the claims on appeal recited “identifying information” (i.e., generating
topology information; generating header files with metadata) and
“comparing information” (i.e., loading graph metadata as needed based on
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

29
graph processing). App. Br. 32. According to Appellant, the claimed
system further includes the subsequent step of generating data identifying a
selected vertex representing an associated product based on the graph
processing. Id. Therefore, contends Appellant, and as in Classen, the
instant claims are directed to a “specific, tangible application,” which is both
“functional and palpable.” Id. (quoting Classen, 659 F.3d at 1066, 1065).
The Examiner responds that the claims on appeal are distinguishable
from Classen because the claims do not provide any specific act of
immunizing a patient (or anything else to be physically done to a patient).
Ans. 10. The Examiner finds instead that the claims merely process abstract
data by use of a generic computer performing routine computer functions.
Id.

Issue 4
Appellant next argues that the Examiner erred because the claims
entail a specific, unconventional technological solution to a technological
problem. Appeal Br. 32. Appellant points to Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet
Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appellant contends that
Amdocs is relevant because the claimed invention in that case (enhancing
data in a distributed fashion) “entail[ed] an unconventional technological
solution … to a technological problem (massive record flows which
previously required massive databases).” Id. (quoting Amdocs, 841 F.3d at
1300). Specifically, Appellant notes the Amdocs court’s finding that the
claims at issue were similar to those in BASCOM, because “when all
limitations are considered individually and as an ordered combination, they
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

30
provide an inventive concept through the use of distributed architecture.” Id.
(emphasis omitted) (quoting Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1302).
Similarly, Appellant argues, the Specification describes how
Appellant’s claimed system is an advancement over the prior art. App. Br.
33. Appellant asserts that, rather than be limited by the amount of data that a
single workstation can handle, the claims on appeal provide a system that
efficiently translates transaction data to a graph input dataset for a graph
analytics application. Id. (citing Spec. ¶¶ 3, 8, 22). Appellant argues that
this results in a benefit, i.e., the system can analyze and process a
voluminous amount of data by translating the data into a graph input dataset
which is appropriately formatted and readable by the graph analytics
application, which results in being able to use a standard machine without
being limited by the time, disk space, and memory capacity available. Id.
(citing Spec. ¶ 3). Appellant asserts that these benefits are both an
enhancement and an improvement that produce an unconventional result.
Id.
The Examiner responds that, unlike the claims in Amdocs, Appellant’s
claims do not provide any enhancement that would result in an
unconventional result. Ans. 10. The Examiner also finds that the features
relied on by Appellant (e.g., providing efficiencies for large data sets) have
not been properly claimed. Id.

Issue 5
Finally, Appellant repeats the argument, discussed supra, that the
claims on appeal are unlike the claims in Electric Power Group, and are not
an abstract idea. App. Br. 33. Appellant asserts that, in analyzing the
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

31
Electric Power Group claims under Step 2B of the Alice analysis, the
Federal Circuit held that “merely selecting information, by content or
source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to
differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.” Id. at 34 (quoting
Electric Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355).
Appellant argues that the claims presently on appeal do more than
“nothing significant” to “differentiate” the process from (alleged) ordinary
mental processes. App. Br. 34. Appellant contends that: (1) the underlying
process is not a mental process because it involves the use of computers to
gather and translate voluminous digital data (e.g., transaction data from a
retailer, which can include customer information and product information,
purchase or transaction time, and other associated data), to create a graph
input dataset which can be processed and analyzed by a graph analytics
application; (2) the claims require separately storing generated topology
information and header files with metadata, where neither the generating nor
the storing can be performed using a mental process; (3) the claims go
beyond merely collecting information, and analyzing and displaying it, but
also translate the graph data into a graph input dataset which can be
processed by the graph analytics application; (4) these additional limitations
(which are described plentifully in the Specification as the purported
advantage over the conventional systems) comprise not only something that
is not “nothing significant” but are also greatly significant over the alleged
ordinary mental processes of Electric Power Group. Id.
Appellant also argues that, unlike the claims in Electric Power Group,
Appellant’s claims do not purport to monopolize every potential solution to
the problem. App. Br. 35. Appellant asserts that the claims are instead
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

32
directed to a particular (i.e., “some”) implementation to solving the problem
of inefficient data translation for graph processing, which prior inefficient
data translation does not scale well. Id. at 35–36. Appellant argues that the
claimed method does not attempt to patent the abstract idea of a solution to a
problem in general, but rather seeks to patent a particular concrete solution
to the problem. Id. at 36.

Analysis
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. In this final step of
the Mayo analysis, we consider the elements of the claim, both individually
and “as an ordered combination,” to determine whether additional elements
“transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Mayo,
566 U.S. at 78–79; 2019 Guidance 56 (Step 2B). The Supreme Court has
described this step as “a search for an ‘inventive concept’”—i.e., an element
or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure that the patent in
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
concept] itself.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (alteration in original); Mayo,
566 U.S. at 72–73.
As an initial matter, we have already addressed the question of
whether the abstract idea recited in the claims is integrated into a practical
application (Appellant’s issue 3) in Step 2A, Prong 2 of our analysis supra.
Briefly, we explained that the claims are not integrated into a practical
application, because the claims recite no additional limitations that extend
the scope of the claims beyond that of the abstract idea itself, i.e., the
language of the claims provides no meaningful limitation beyond the
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

33
abstract idea of organizing and formatting data for use by a graph analysis
application.
This same reasoning undermines Appellant’s remaining arguments.
Simply put, Appellant’s argument that “the claims as a whole amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea,” fails, because the claims, taken as
a whole, recite no more than the abstract idea itself, viz., (1) generating a
table containing topology information of a graph; (2) generating files that
include metadata describing a plurality of tables with graph information; (3)
generating files containing data from the plurality of tables including the
topology information table; (4) storing the generated files with table data at a
first storage location; (5) storing the generated header files at a second
storage location; (6) loading graph metadata stored separately from topology
information as needed; and (7) generating data identifying a selected vertex
representing an associated product. All of these steps constitute the
organizing (i.e., generating date into tables and formatting) and storing steps
performed on a generic processor and using commercially-available
software. There are no recited extra-processing limitations and,
consequently, there are no limitations expanding the scope of the claim to
add “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. And it is well
established that “simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer,
without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-
ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one.” See Accenture Glob. Servs.,
GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
(citing Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687
F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
We consequently affirm the Examiner’s rejection of the claims.
Appeal 2019-002334
Application 14/148,435

34

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–14, 16, 17, and 19–22 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–14, 16,
17, 19–22
101 Eligibility

1–14, 16, 17,
19–22