Pedersen, Brad

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2020

13465745 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/465,745 05/07/2012 Brad Pedersen 999.603US02 7983
24113 7590 03/30/2020
PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A.
80 SOUTH 8TH STREET
4800 IDS CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-2100
EXAMINER
YOUNG, MICHAEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
efsuspto@ptslaw.com
johnson@ptslaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRAD PEDERSEN
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
Technology Center 3600

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JAMES W. DEJMEK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8, 10, 11, 13–17, 20, and 21. (See
Final Act. 1.) Claims 9, 12, 18, and 19 are canceled. Oral arguments were
heard on February 25, 2020. A transcript of the hearing was placed in the
record on March 9, 2020. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42 (2016). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Patterson
Thuente Pedersen, P.A. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2
The claims are directed to a system for computerized management of
patent-related information. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphases, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computerized system for the management of
patent information over an Intranet network, the system
comprising:

a familial module adapted to maintain familial data related
to at least one patent application, wherein the familial data
includes data identifying any other patent application in a priority
chain for the at least one patent application;

a schedule module adapted to maintain schedule data
related to the at least one patent application;

an integrator operably coupled to the Intranet network,
comprising:

a processor, a memory, and

an integrator database configured to store data obtained
from the familial module and the schedule module by the
processor using logic stored in the memory, wherein the data is
stored according to one of a plurality of predetermined client
identifiers and one of a plurality of predetermined client
technology silos; and

a user terminal operably coupled to the Intranet network
and adapted to display a dashboard interface to a user, the
dashboard interface visually representing the data related to the
at least one patent application obtained from the integrator over

2 At the oral hearing, Mr. Pedersen indicated that “Christian” and he “came
up” with the claimed invention. (See Tr. 10–11.) However, we note that the
Oath and Bibliographic Data Sheet only identify Brad Pedersen as the
inventor.
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
3
the Intranet network and selected via the user terminal according
to a particular client identifier from among the plurality of client
identifiers and a particular client technology silo from among
the plurality of client technology silos, wherein patent
applications having non-selected client identifiers and patent
applications having non-selected client technology silos are
hidden from view, the data comprising:

a plurality of expandable family tree icons, one of
the plurality of expandable family tree icons configured to
be expandable to visually depict the familial relations of a
first patent application and collapsible to hide the familial
relations of the first patent application, wherein another
of the plurality of expandable family tree icons is
configured to be expandable to visually depict the familial
relations of a second patent application and collapsible to
hide the familial relations of the second patent
application,

wherein each family tree icon in an expanded state
includes at least the following dynamically-updated
attributes of the first patent application obtained by the
integrator and presented for view on the dashboard
interface:
a timeline, the timeline visually depicting the
relative patent prosecution progress of the at least
one patent application, and including at least one
prosecution event, the at least one prosecution event
visually depicting an associated event occurring
during patent prosecution,

a status indication icon, the status indication
icon visually depicting the relative patent
prosecution status of the at least one patent
application, and

a cost indication icon for the at least one
prosecution event, the cost indication icon visually
depicting the cost relative to a budget for the
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
4
prosecution expense of the at least one prosecution
event,
and wherein each family tree icon in an unexpanded state
has the timeline, the status indication icon, and the cost
indication icon for the at least one patent application hidden
from view on the dashboard interface.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:

Oliver US 5,907,490 May 25, 1999
Bereiter et al. US 5,917,492 June 29, 1999
Belford et al. US 2001/0034675 Al Oct. 25, 2001
Clark et al. US 7,822,747 B2 Oct. 26, 2010
Thomas US 2012/0130857 A1 May 24, 2012

Grainger et al.3 WO 02/43306 A2 May 30, 2002
Lee et al. WO 2010/111351 A1 Sept. 30, 2010

Ryan Tetzlaff, How to Make a Thermometer Chart in Microsoft Excel 2010
(2010) (accessed March 20, 2020) https://www.brighthub.com/
computing/windows-platform/articles/75680.aspx, (hereinafter “Tetzlaff”).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–8, 10, 13–17, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a
law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without
significantly more.
Claims 1–8, 10, 14–17, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grainger in view of Lee, in
view of Bereiter in view of Belford in view of Thomas.

3 We note that Snyder is the first named inventor on this PCT published
application, but the Examiner and Appellant refer to it as Grainger.
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
5
Claim 11 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Grainger in view of Lee, in view of Bereiter in view of
Belford in view of Thomas in view of Clark.
Claim 13 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Grainger in view of Lee, in view of Bereiter in view of
Belford in view of Thomas in view of Oliver.
Claim 21 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Grainger in view of Lee, in view of Bereiter in view of
Belford in view of Thomas in further view of Tetzlaff.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 1–8, 10, 11, 14–17 and 20
With respect to patent eligibility of independent claims 1, 15, and 21,
Appellant does not set forth separate arguments for patentability of the
claims.4 Therefore, we select independent system claim 1 as the
representative claim for the group and will address Appellant’s arguments
thereto. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

4 We note that the Examiner did not include dependent claim 11 in the patent
eligibility statement of rejection, but the claim has been rejected previously
with all of the pending claims in the first three office actions based upon a
lack of patent-eligible subject matter. Additionally, the Examiner addressed
claim 11 in the body of the rejection. (Final Act. 10.) As a result, we
interpret the Examiner’s rejection to include dependent claim 11 and find
that this is harmless error by the Examiner.
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
6
A. Legal Principles
An invention is patent eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas and, thus, patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
7
(15 How.) 252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S.
at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation omitted). “A claim
that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that
the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
[abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77 (alteration in original)).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published revised
guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019
Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
(“Memorandum”). Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim
recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human
activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”)
§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to
whether the claim:
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
8
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception.
See Memorandum.
B. The Examiner’s Conclusions and Appellant’s Arguments
The Examiner concludes the present claims recite “the abstract idea of
managing patent information,” which “the examiner considers . . . to be an
idea of itself.” (Final Act. 5, 7.) More particularly, in the Answer, the
Examiner concludes the claimed limitations are similar to those in Electric
Power Group5 and recite abstract mental processes. (Ans. 5, 6, 7.) The
Examiner also determines the present claims do not amount to significantly
more than an abstract idea itself because the abstract idea is implemented
using additional elements that are well-understood, routine, and
conventional. (Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 7, 9–11 (citing buySAFE, Inc. v.
Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).)
Appellant contends the Examiner fails to set forth a prima facie case of
subject matter ineligibility. (Appeal Br. 27.) Appellant argues the present
claims recite an improvement in computerized user interface technology.
(Appeal Br. 28–31 (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327
(Fed. Cir. 2016)); Reply Br. 4, 13.)Appellant further argues the present
claims are necessarily rooted in technology because the claimed dynamic
presentation of patent application data remedies the problems of traditional

5 Electric Power Grp, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
9
computerized interface technology for displaying patent-related information
that relies upon lists, table and spreadsheet approaches. (Appeal Br. 28, 32–
33 (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir.
2014)); Reply Br. 7.) Additionally, Appellant argues the claims are not
directed towards an abstract idea under Alice step 2A. (Appeal Br. 29–32.)
Appellant further contends that the claims here improve computerized
user interface technology with respect to how that technology can be
configured to more effectively and efficiently process and present patent-
related information. (Appeal Br. 30.) Appellant further contends that the
claimed selection of how and what to display and what not to display in the
context of presenting patent-related information on a computerized user
interface is not an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 30. Appellant also contends
that “[t]he expandable and collapsible tree icons of the claimed inventions
that include timeline, status and cost icons and that dynamically show or
hide patent application data by client and client technology identifiers
improve the way that computerized user interface technology presents
patent-related information to users.” (Appeal Br. 31.) Further, Appellant
argues that “the specific claimed limitations are an improvement on a
computerized user interface that cannot be replicated by any kind of ‘paper
and pencil’ approach.” (Appeal Br. 31.)
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not considered the relevant
case law arguing the applicability of DDR (DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at
1265), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed.
Cir. 2016), Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed.
Cir. 2017,) and Visual Memory LLC. v. Nvidia Corp., 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) and attempting to differentiate Electric Power Group, LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). (Appeal Br. 32–35.)
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
10
Appellant also contends that the Examiner fails to provide clear and
convincing evidence to support the findings and conclusions that the
additional elements implementing the abstract idea are well-understood,
routine, and conventional. (Reply Br. 5–6 (citing Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).)
At the oral hearing, Appellant’s representative argued that Core
Wireless6 is the most relevant case law and fact pattern for the present case.
(Tr. 4:1–2.)
In the Reply Brief, Appellant further contends:
The appealed claims are directed to an improved user interface
for presentation of patent-related information for electronic
devices similar to the improved user interface for electronic
devices in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics.
Inc. 2016-2684, 2017-1922 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). In
particular, the claims in this case are directed to the same kind of
improved user interface for computing devices with respect to
how that technology can be configured to more effectively and
efficiently process and present patent-related information that
was considered in Core Wiresless, [sic] not to the abstract idea
of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain
results of the collection and analysis. Although the generic idea
of collecting and displaying patent data certainly existed prior to
the invention, the claims in both cases are directed to a particular
manner of synthesizing and presenting patent data in electronic
devices.
(Reply Br. 11.)
C. Discussion
1. Step 2A, Prong 1

6 Core Wireless Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d
1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
11
Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of law that is
reviewable de novo. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333
(Fed. Cir. 2012). We, therefore, determine the emphasized portions of claim
1, reproduced above (see supra at 2–4), recite a mental process (i.e., a
concept performed in the human mind, such as, an observation, evaluation,
judgment, and opinion), which is an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52. We generally agree with the Examiner’s characterization
regarding the subject matter to which the claims are directed. (See Final
Act. 7.) In particular, the claims generally are directed to organizing,
storing, and transmitting information (see Spec. ¶ 11) to manage patent
information. (Final Act. 7.)
This is consistent with how Appellant describes the invention.7 In
particular, Appellant characterizes the claims as being directed to, and
improving, computerized user interface technology. (Appeal Br. 30.) Thus,
other than using the phrase “improve[d]” “computerized user interface
technology with respect to how that technology can be configured to more
effectively and efficiently process and present patent-related information,”
Appellant’s characterization of the claims is very similar to the Examiner’s

7 Appellant also acknowledges the claims generally fall into the mental
step category of abstract ideas, but argues the claims include more than
just the abstract idea because
[t]he claims that are pending in this case claim a particular
dynamic display as shown, for example, in figure 3 of the
application that cannot be performed in a human mind, and like
the federal circuit found in Core Wireless, they involve the
display and the hiding of information on that user interface to
result in an improved graphic user interface.
(See Tr. 4–5.)
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
12
and consistent with our characterization. (Appeal Br. 30.) Appellant further
argues that the
improvement to a computerized user interface de-clutters an
otherwise overwhelming user interface displaying patent-related
information by using “a particular client identifier from among
the plurality of client identifiers and a particular client
technology silo from among the plurality of client technology
silos, wherein patent applications having non-selected client
identifiers and patent applications having non-selected client
technology silos are hidden from view.”
(Appeal Br. 30.)
We find Appellant’s argument to be unavailing because it is not
commensurate in scope with the scope of independent claim 1 because the
language of independent claim 1 merely states “one patent application,”
“any other patent application,” “one of a plurality of predetermined client
identifiers,” and “one of a plurality of predetermined client technology
silos,” “a plurality of expandable family tree icons,” “one of the plurality of
expandable family tree icons,” “another of the plurality of expandable family
tree icons,” “timeline,” “status indication,” and “cost indication.”
Consequently, we have a limited amount of data to be presented or available
for processing in the scope of independent claim 1. Under the broadest
reasonable interpretation, we agree with the Examiner that the limited
claimed processing and display of the claimed subject matter recites a
mental process, which is an abstract idea.
At the Hearing Judge Busch stated:
[i]t seems like all you need to do in the way this claim is drafted
is get a folder of a certain client and a sub folder of a certain
technology they have and pull out the cost, the fees, three pieces
of paper, three documents and clip them next to each other and
that would kind of be your pen and paper or mental process
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
13
equivalent of what you’re doing here and then keeping the other
documents in a folder -- right? -- because those are now hidden.
(Tr. 12.)
Therefore, claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation,
recites a mental process (i.e., an abstract idea), we proceed to prong 2.

2. Step 2A, Prong 2
The present claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing
the abstract idea. In particular, we disagree with Appellant’s argument that,
similar to Enfish, the present claims recite an improvement in computer-
related technology and “[t]he expandable and collapsible tree icons of the
claimed inventions that include timeline, status and cost icons and that
dynamically show or hide patent application data by client and client
technology identifiers improve the way that computerized user interface
technology presents patent-related information to users.” (Appeal Br. 31;
Reply Br. 4, 13.)8
Appellant argues “there were no solutions for managing the display of
voluminous patent data in a meaningful way on conventional computer
screens and the claims are patent eligible because they improve this existing
technological process.” (Reply Br. 8.) We find Appellant’s argument
unavailing because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed
invention does not set forth “voluminous data.”
Appellant further argues that
The combination of elements in the claimed inventions is non-
generic because it enhances the human ability to understand,

8 We note the Reply Brief begins pagination at page 5.
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
14
manage, and monitor cases where the triggering event for actions
and deadlines in the patent cases being displayed is asynchronous
and is also both reactionary and dictated. Unlike existing
displays of patent-related information, the claims do not
aggregate or average patent data. Nor do the claims merely
provide data on a single case or provide for a conventional
tabular presentation of patent data. “Rather, the system provides
the ability to manage numerous individual files by incorporating
the key pieces of data relevant to patent prosecution and portfolio
management of multiple applications in a unified view on a
computerized display.”
(Appeal Br. 37.) Appellant does not identify persuasively how the
Specification sets forth an improvement in technology.
In this case, the Examiner concludes the present claims do not recite
an improvement to technology. (Final Act. 2–3, 8; Ans. 6, 7, 10–12.)
Consequently, we focus on any evidence Appellant cites. Here, Appellant
generally cites to the Specification at pages 1–3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13–15. (Appeal
Br. 31, 37; Reply Br. 6, 7, 14, 15.) These general citations to the
specification do not show an improvement to a technology.
In addition, in Enfish, the Federal Circuit considered how the present
invention was superior to the technology in the prior art. That is, the court
considered “the specification’s emphasis that ‘the present invention
comprises a flexible, self-referential table that stores data,’” “[t]he
specification also teaches that the self-referential table functions differently
than conventional database structures,” and “traditional databases, such as
‘those that follow the relational model and those that follow the object
oriented model[,]’ are inferior to the claimed invention.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at
1337 (citations omitted). Moreover, in Enfish, “‘[t]he structural
requirements of current databases require a programmer to predefine a
structure and subsequent [data] entry must conform to that structure,’ [and]
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
15
the ‘database of the present invention does not require a programmer to
preconfigure a structure to which a user must adapt data entry.’” Id. Based
on the foregoing, the court determined the claims “achieve[d] other benefits
over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search
times, and smaller memory requirements.” Id. Unlike the claims of Enfish,
the present claims do not recite an improvement in computer-related
technology.
Instead, the present claims recite an abstract idea as discussed supra,
or at best, improving an abstract idea—not a technological improvement.
The Specification indicates the additional elements (modules, integrator,
processor, memory, database and user terminal) recited in the present claims
are merely generic computer components used to implement the abstract
idea. The Specification discloses:
It will be understood that the database, servers and terminals or
display arrangements can be part of a well-understood
computerized systems, either in the form of standalone systems
or networked systems, including both intranet and internet
systems, as well as virtualized computer processor systems such
as cloud computing systems. Likewise, the computer hardware,
processors, memory and display systems through with the
systems of the present invention can be implemented are
intended to extend to any computerized systems that are
presently known or that may be developed in the future.
(Spec. 11.) The Specification further discloses:
Integrator 312 can interface with any number of user
displays or terminals 314. User terminal 314 can be embodied
by any suitable terminal including, without limitation, a desktop
computer 324, laptop computer 326, personal digital assistant
(PDA) 328, or smartphone 330. User 316 accesses terminals 314
over interface 313 to retrieve data stored on integrator database
318 of integrator 312.
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
16
(Spec. 12.) Further, the generic computer components, individually and in
combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application.
Additionally, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (emphasis added). “[U]nder the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim
directed to a newly discovered law of nature (or natural phenomenon or
abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive
concept necessary for patent eligibility.” Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial
L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).
In addition, Appellant argues the appealed claims are directed to an
improved user interface for presentation of patent-related information for
electronic devices similar to the improved user interface for electronic
devices in Core Wireless. (Reply Br. 11–15 (arguing the claims are more
similar to the claims in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics,
Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) than the claims in Electric Power
Group, LLC v. Alstrom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
We note that the claims in the Core Wireless case were slightly
different than the present claims. In Core Wireless, the claims mentioned
“‘each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective
application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective
application’ that requires the application summary window list a limited set
of data,” but the claimed invention merely claims “a user terminal . . . data
comprising” family tree icons, a timeline, status indicator, and cost indicator
which are all identified as merely displayed “data.”
However, the claims do not recite how the “data” is generated or
synthesized, but that the “data” is merely presented on the display in a
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
17
certain presentation. Although the claims recite multiple presentations of
different “data,” the claim language focuses on the resulting presentation.
Similarly, the claims recite presenting a dashboard interface with various
data elements, but do not recite how data are functionally acquired or
formed. Moreover, it is unclear how generally reciting a way of presenting
mere “data” improves processing or functioning of the computer or the
display.
Notably, Appellant’s independent claims are not directed to
improving the operation of the graphical user interface features or
techniques, or an improvement to these technologies. Rather, Appellant’s
claims merely recite receiving data and presenting various facets of patent
prosecution and display of that data. In other words, Appellant’s claims, at
most, improve the selection of data presented to a user.
Appellant does not explain persuasively how the independent claims
address a problem relating to, or a technological improvement to, either the
method itself or the graphical user interfaces. Instead, Appellant primarily
“simplifies an otherwise overwhelming user interface to limit the amount of
data displayed and improves existing computerized interface technology.”
(Reply Br. 13–15; See Spec. 1–7.) Although Appellant describes the
invention as a “specific” technological solution, Appellant describes and
broadly claims a solution rooted in data collection, analysis, and
presentation. Consequently, we find Appellant’s argument unavailing.
Nor do we find that the independent claims recite an improvement to a
dashboard interface. The claims recite presenting “data” in a dashboard
interface. Appellant has not demonstrated persuasively how presenting
patent prosecution “data” on a user terminal dashboard interface improves a
user interface. Because Appellant’s claims merely present data to particular
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
18
data categories rather than address a technological improvement to a user
dashboard, we disagree with Appellant’s contention that the claims are
similar to those held eligible in Core Wireless. Compare Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (“the recited dynamic document provides little more than an
unspecified set of rules for displaying and organizing MRTs in a user
interface akin to the generic interfaces we have elsewhere explained impart
no inventive concept”), and Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d
1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (determining the claimed user interface “do[es]
not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more
efficiently, or solve any technological problem,” but instead recited “a
purportedly new arrangement of generic information that assists traders in
processing information more quickly”), with Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at
1360, 1362–63 (determining claims directed to a GUI providing access to
application information from a main menu with the application in an
unlaunched state were not directed to an abstract idea because the
“limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of
information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface
methods to display a generic index on a computer” (emphases added). In
addition to Trading Technologies and Capital One Financial, the Federal
Circuit held ineligible claims reciting particular relationships between GUI
elements and creating new GUI elements from existing GUI elements.
Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In Apple, the court determined the claims did “not claim a particular
way of programming or designing the software to create menus that have
these features, but instead merely claim the resulting systems.” Apple, 842
F.3d at 1241 (emphases added). The Court further stated that, “[e]ssentially,
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
19
the claims are directed to certain functionality—here, the ability to generate
menus with certain features,” not “to a specific improvement in the way
computers operate.” Id.
Similarly, to the extent Appellant relies on BASCOM Glob. Internet
Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred. (See Reply Br. 6–7.) In BASCOM, the
court found “the patent describes how its particular arrangement of elements
is a technical improvement” and, when construed in favor of BASCOM,9 the
claims may be read to improve an existing technological process. BASCOM,
827 F.3d at 1350. As discussed above, Appellant’s claims do not improve
an existing technological process, but rather present data in a user
dashboard. Additionally, unlike the arrangement of elements (i.e.,
installation of a filtering tool at a specific location) in BASCOM, 827 F.3d at
1349–50, Appellant’s claims do not recite a non-conventional and non-
routine arrangement of known elements that improves a technology because,
other than the particular data, the steps are so broadly recited.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the independent claims do not
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and, therefore, are
directed to an abstract idea.
3. Step 2B
We agree with the Examiner’s determination that the additional
elements implementing the abstract idea are well-understood, routine, and
conventional. (Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 9–10.) The Specification supports the
Examiner’s determination in this regard because it explains that “e.g.,

9 In BASCOM, BASCOM appealed the district court’s granting of a motion
to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1341.
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
20
modules, interface, network, processor, integrator and a memory, etc. . . .
when taken in combination with the functional elements of patent portfolio
management, together do not offer ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea
itself to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter” (Final
Act. 8) and are generic components. See Spec. 11–12. Appellant’s
Specification indicates these additional elements were well-understood,
routine, and conventional components because it describes them at a high
level of generality and in a manner that indicates that they were sufficiently
well-known. Id. Moreover, the additional elements recited in the present
claims, analyzed individually or in combination, do not result in the claim,
as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
We also disagree with Appellant’s argument that, similar to
Berkheimer, the Examiner fails to provide clear and convincing evidence to
support the finding that the additional elements implementing the abstract
idea are well-understood, routine, and conventional. (Reply Br. 5.) Indeed,
as noted above, the Examiner provides citations to the Specification that
sufficiently support this finding (Final Act. 8–9 (citing Spec. 11, 12)) and the
Specification supports the Examiner’s determination in this regard because it
explains that the additional elements are generic computer components.
Appellant does not argue claims 2–8, 10, 11, 13–17, 20, and 21
separately, but generally asserts the § 101 rejection of those claims should be
withdrawn for at least the same reasons as argued for independent claim 1.
Appeal Br. 24. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of:
(1) independent claims 1, 15, and 21; and (2) dependent claims 2–8, 10, 11,
13, 14, 16, 17, 20, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
21
make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to obviousness of independent claims 1, 15, and 21,
Appellant does not set forth separate arguments for patentability of the
claims. Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim
for the group and will address Appellant’s arguments thereto. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our
analysis below. (See Final Act. 12–80; Ans. 12–16.)
At the outset, we note that representative claim 1 is drafted based
upon generic computer hardware with a “familial module” and a “schedule
module” and an “integrator.” Appellant does not identify any specific
definition or interpretation of these “modules” and the Summary of the
Claimed Subject Matter generally identifies the modules as populated
“databases.” (Appeal Br. 5.) We further note that the claimed integrator
contains the processor, memory, and integrator databases which store
familial and schedule “data” from the modules. The claim further recites a
user terminal to display a dashboard interface and the remainder of the claim
describes “data comprising” various information at a specific moment in
time.
We further note claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and taking
into account whatever enlightenment may be had from the Specification. In
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
22
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “In the patentability
context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations . . .
limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Here,
the language of representative independent claim 1 merely sets forth a broad
field of use and general hardware elements with two database elements with
client identifiers and technology silos and then sets forth very detailed
descriptions of non-functional “data.”
Appellant contends that the claimed limitations are not taught by the
cited references and maintains that the Examiner “glosses over a number of
required elements.” (Appeal Br. 39.) Specifically, Appellant contends the
Examiner has not shown the “the dynamically-updated timeline, status
indication, and cost indication responsive to a particular client identifier and
a particular client technology that result from the integrated familial,
schedule, and cost data that provides benefits and differentiates over the
prior art.” (Appeal Br. 40.) Appellant also contends that the Examiner has
not shown “the unique data display required by the independent claims.”
(Id.) Appellant further argues that the Examiner has not shown the claimed
“wherein each family tree icon in an unexpanded state has the timeline, the
status indication icon, and the cost indication icon for the at least one patent
application hidden from view on the dashboard interface.” (Id.) Appellant
contends that the Examiner has not found evidence of the required family
tree icon, status indication icon, and cost indication icon. (Appeal Br. 41.)
Appellant also contends that the Examiner has provided an incomplete
explanation, and the Examiner does not address the claimed link between the
data storage and the display. (Id.) Appellant further argues that the
Examiner has not explained how Thomas discloses
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
23
the dashboard interface visually representing the data related to
the at least one patent application obtained from the integrator
over the Intranet network and selected via the user terminal
according to a particular client identifier from among the
plurality of client identifiers and a particular client technology
silo from among the plurality of client technology silos.
(Appeal Br. 42 (emphasis omitted).)
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments because Appellant argues no
single reference provides a display of all three types of data in the same
interface, but the Examiner admits this and relies upon the obviousness of
presenting various non-functional data elements simultaneously on an
interface and relies upon a combination of teachings. (Final Act. 23–29).
The Examiner further maintains that:
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the
prior art, albeit shown in the separate references, the difference
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on
any individual element or function but in the very combination
itself-that is the combination of the storing and selecting data
using various silos and identifiers to break up the information
into data sets of the secondary references Thomas with the
system for the management of patent information over an
Internet network as shown in the combination of Grainger, Lee,
Bereiter and Belford.
(Final Act. 29.)10

10 Additionally, we note the Ponce de Leon reference, not of record, US
8,400,467 B1, issued Mar. 19, 2013 and filed on May 1, 2009. This patent
discloses:
A graphical planning and scheduling system [which] is based on
the Graphical Planning Method and object oriented principles.
The system is graphics-driven and may support gestural and
surface computing. The system may allow resource leveling,
schedule optimization, and time/cost tradeoffs to occur
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
24
Finally, Appellant argues there is no motivation to combine the prior
art teachings, and Appellant contends that
Not only does the Examiner’s conclusory statement fail to meet
the base threshold of “articulated reasoning,” one of ordinary
skill at the time of the invention would not have combined these
references as suggested. The Examiner has not provided any
reason why a relevant skilled artisan would be motivated to
combine Grainger, Lee, Bereiter, and/or Belford with the
platform for merchandising intellectual property of Thomas.
Appellant[’]s claims to a system for the management of patent-
related information is for the management of patent portfolios,
not for attempting to sell the IP resulting from the prosecution of
such patent portfolios. The Examiner has failed to provide any
motivation to combine the Grainger, Lee, Bereiter, Belford, and
Thomas references.
(Appeal Br. 43; see also Reply Br 10–11.)
We find Appellant’s argument to be a general argument for
patentability which does not address the specific lines of reasoning provided
by the Examiner. We note that the preamble sets forth “system for the
management of patent information over an Intranet network.”
Consequently, we find the claim 1 merely claims manipulation of the data

interactively on a display and in conjunction with network
construction.
(Abstract.) Figure 2 of the reference shows,
the GUI 102 displays the calendar attributes, including year 212,
month 214 and day 216. The GUI 102 may also display grid lines
218, a histogram 220 and line graphs 222 for representing
resources and/or cost information . . . The GUI 102 may display
other graphical and/or textual information representing aspects
of the project and/or schedule. The GUI 102 may also utilize
colors, color shades and/or hatching patterns to distinguish
different aspects of the project and/or schedule.
(Id. at 6:1–10.)
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
25
and presentation to a user without any additional functionality to the
presentation of the data. Rather, Appellant proffers that the data is more
readily understandable in the presented format for a user.
Furthermore, the claim limitation “patent prosecution” is not
introduced until identifying the elements of “the data” and the timeline.
Appellant proffers that prosecution of applications and patent prosecution
events are different than the merchandising IP of the Thomas reference and
the patent docketing system of the Grainger reference and that the
combination is based upon hindsight. (See generally Appeal Br. 42–45.)
We find Appellant’s argument unavailing and find the Examiner has
addressed the combination of each reference and provided a persuasive line
of reasoning for the combination of each reference in the combination. (See
Final Act. 12–30.) Specifically, with respect to the Thomas reference, the
Examiner provides a line of reasoning for the combination. (Final Act. 28–
30.) We agree with the Examiner’s line of reasoning and additionally note
that the Examiner has also provided the discussions of the visual
presentation of data concerning non-functional descriptive material. (See
Final Act. 18, 26.)
Furthermore, Appellants’ arguments amount to a piecemeal attack on
the Thomas reference, despite the Examiner relying on the combined
teachings of these references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.”).
Appellant argues none of the references teach the claimed
combination where “each family tree icon in an unexpanded state has the
timeline, the status indication icon, and the cost indication icon for the at
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
26
least one patent application hidden from view on the dashboard interface.”
(Reply Br. 9.) Again, we find Appellant’s argument unavailing because the
Examiner has based the rejection upon a combination of references and no
specific reference teaches all the presentation elements. Appellant further
contends that the Examiner’s rationales are merely conclusory statements.
(Reply Br. 10.) We disagree with Appellant and find that Appellant’s
argument does not appreciate the Examiner’s rejection regarding the various
non-functional data elements displayed.
As a result, Appellant’s arguments do not show error in the
Examiner’s showing of obviousness of representative independent claim 1.
Appellant does not set forth separate arguments for patentability of
independent claims 15 and 21 and the remainder of the dependent claims 2–
8, 13, 14, 16, and 17. Therefore, they will fall with their respective parent
claims and representative independent claim 1.
Claims 10, 11, and 20
Appellant additionally sets forth separate arguments for claims 10, 11,
and 20. With respect to dependent claims 10 and 20, Appellant repeats the
language of the claim regarding an “estimated timeframe span” and contends
that the Lee reference does not teach or suggest the claimed estimated
timeframe span. (Appeal Br. 45 – 47.)
The Examiner maintains that the Lee reference discloses the
“estimated timeframe span.” (Final Act. 33.) The Examiner further
maintains that Appellant relies on a more narrow interpretation of the claim
beyond its broadest reasonable interpretation. (Ans. 14–15.) The Examiner
further identifies how the Lee reference teaches or suggests the timeline of
claim 10 and Grainger teaches or suggests the estimated timeframe span of
dependent claim 20.
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
27
Appellant contends that the global patent portfolio data taught by Lee
does not teach the claimed “prosecution event.” (Reply Br. 10.) We find
Appellant’s argument unavailing because Appellant has not identified any
express definition of a “prosecution event” and a patent expiration date in
certain circumstances is a prosecution event (for example, patent expiration
is a critical reissue patent application event and a reexamination proceeding
critical patent prosecution event) that may change claim interpretation in
other facets of patent prosecution depending on the circumstances.
Consequently, we find Appellant’s general argument to be unavailing.
With respect to dependent claim 11, Appellant contends that one
skilled in the art would have no motivation to add a “current project status”
to a time slider control for re-querying a patent portfolio database to display
data for a new timeframe, as disclosed in Lee and as discussed with respect
to claim 10; global patent portfolio data is not prosecution event data; and
the current time is irrelevant in that context (Appeal Br. 49). Appellant also
contends that the Examiner’s findings are legally insufficient and do not
meet the Examiner’s burden. (Reply Br. 11.)
The Examiner has identified the Clark reference to teach the current
time. The Examiner maintains that the Clark reference discloses and
suggests the use of a current time marker. We agree with the Examiner (see
Final Act. 54) that the current time status (shown as item 324 in Figure 4A)
teaches and suggests the use of a well-known current time indication on a
project timeline.
The Examiner responds and buttresses the line of reasoning for the
combination and maintains that the combination would have yielded nothing
more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
invention. (Final Act. 55–56; Ans. 15.) We find the Examiner’s rejection of
Appeal 2018-005823
Application 13/465,745
28
the “current time marker” and line of reasoning for the combination to be
sufficient and find Appellant’s argument to be a general argument for
patentability. As a result, Appellant’s argument does not show error in the
Examiner’s factual findings or the conclusion of obviousness to dependent
claim 11.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 10, 11,
13–17, 20,
21
101 Patent eligibility 1–8, 10,
11, 13–17,
20, 21

1–8, 10, 14–
17, 20
103 Grainger, Lee, Bereiter,
Belford, Thomas
1–8, 10,
14–17, 20

11 103 Grainger, Lee, Bereiter,
Belford, Thomas, Clark
11
13 103 Grainger, Lee, Bereiter,
Belford, Thomas,
Oliver
13
21 103 Grainger, Lee, Bereiter,
Belford, Thomas, Excel
21
Overall
Outcome:
1–8, 10,
11, 13–17,
20, 21

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED