Sireesh Mutharaju et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 27, 201914319556 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/319,556 06/30/2014 Sireesh Mutharaju 20140358 3808 25537 7590 08/27/2019 VERIZON PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP 1320 North Court House Road 9th Floor ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909 EXAMINER HENSON, MISCHITA L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2865 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/27/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): patents@verizon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SIREESH MUTHARAJU, SHUNMUGAPRIYA SIVABALAN, SHAN SASIDHARAN, RADHIKA SUNDARESWARAN, and ARUMUGASANKAR RAMAKRISHNAN ____________ Appeal 2018-008518 Application 14/319,556 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, and MERRELL C. CASHION, Jr., Administrative Patent Judges. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–7, 9, 10, 13–17, and 21–28, which are all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed June 30, 2014 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated Nov. 6, 2017 (“Final Act.”); Advisory Action dated Jan. 19, 2018 (“Adv. Act.”); Appeal Brief filed Mar. 19, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer dated July 06, 2018 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed Aug. 23, 2018 (“Reply Br.”). 2 Appellant is the Applicant, Verizon Patent and Licensing Inc. Bib. Data Sheet 1. According to the Appeal Brief, “Verizon Communications Inc. and its subsidiary companies” is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2018-008518 Application 14/319,556 2 We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure relates to a method to facilitate the accurate position determination of outside plant (OSP) elements within telecommunication network infrastructures. Spec. ¶ 13; Abstract. According to the Specification, the claimed subject matter performs “geometric analysis” (Spec. ¶¶ 14–16) on mapping data to automatically categorize deviations in OSP element positions over two-dimensional segments representing smaller sub-areas within a specified region of a map, and also flag segments where one or more OSP elements exhibit unacceptable position errors (id. ¶ 13). Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief: 1. A method, comprising: partitioning, by one or more processors, a first map into a plurality of segments, wherein the first map represents a layout for outside plant (OSP) elements located within a region; identifying, by the one or more processors, at least one segment of the plurality of segments that is unsuitable for a geometric analysis; subdividing, by the one or more processors, the at least one identified segment into multiple segments, until each of the multiple segments is suitable for geometric analysis; performing, by the one or more processors, the geometric analysis on the segments in the first map and on spatially corresponding segments in a geocoded map, wherein performing the geometric analysis includes: determining at least one first spatial metric based on a position of at least one OSP element and a position of at Appeal 2018-008518 Application 14/319,556 3 least one control point within each segment in the first map, and determining at least one second spatial metric based on a position of the at least one OSP element and a position of the at least one control point in a corresponding segment in the geocoded map; comparing, by the one or more processors, the geometric analysis of the segments in the first map and the geometric analysis of the spatially corresponding segments in the geocoded map, wherein comparing the geometric analysis includes: determining deviations between the at least one first spatial metric and the at least one second spatial metric for each corresponding segment in the first map and the geocoded map; and generating a comparative ranking based on the deviations, wherein generating a comparative ranking includes: establishing categories of ranges of the determined deviations between the at least one first spatial metric and the at least one second spatial metric, wherein the ranges are non-overlapping and have lower and upper bounds which are sorted in increasing order, assigning each segment to one of the established categories based upon a maximum determined deviation in each segment, counting a number of segments assigned to each of the established categories, and labeling each segment based upon the established category to which it is assigned; and displaying, by the one or more processors via a graphical output including a display window and a control window that includes user input fields, each labeled segment on the geocoded map based on the assigned category of each segment according to values received via the user input fields. Appeal 2018-008518 Application 14/319,556 4 Appeal Br. 16–17 (key disputed claim language italicized and bolded). REJECTION ON APPEAL The Examiner maintains (Ans. 2) the following rejection on appeal: Claims 1–7, 9, 10, 13–17, and 21–28 are 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. Final Act. 3–9. ANALYSIS After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s § 101 rejection based on the fact-finding and reasoning set forth below, in the Final Action (Final Act. 3–9), in the Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2–3), and in the Answer (Ans. 2–11). I. Standard for Patent Ineligibility Section 101 of the Patent Act provides “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, 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 Appeal 2018-008518 Application 14/319,556 5 Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 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, 67 (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. 252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a Appeal 2018-008518 Application 14/319,556 6 mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook). 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). The USPTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the Guidance, we look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e. mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and Appeal 2018-008518 Application 14/319,556 7 (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).3 See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 55–56. Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. II. Examiner’s Findings and Conclusion Applying the Alice/Mayo two-step framework, the Examiner rejects claims 1–7, 9, 10, 13–17, and 21–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Final Act. 3–9; Ans. 2–11. At the first step of the Alice/Mayo inquiry, the Examiner determines that the claims are directed to the “abstract idea of a mathematical relationship or formula.” Final Act. 3. For example, the Examiner determines that claim 1 recites the abstract idea of “organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations.” Id. at 5; see also Ans. 8 (finding the “implementation of a geometric analysis scheme amounts [to] mathematical manipulation of collected data (an abstract idea)”). 3 All references to the MPEP are to Rev. 08.2017 (Jan. 2018). Appeal 2018-008518 Application 14/319,556 8 At the second step of the Alice/Mayo inquiry, the Examiner determines that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Id. at 3. The Examiner finds that the steps recited in claim 1, for example, “describe the concept of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as Electric Power Group.” Id. at 5; see also Ans. 4–5 (explaining the “combination of features” does not distinguish the claims from Electric Power Group). The Examiner further finds the claims are not directed to an improvement in computer functionality. See Ans. 7–8. Thus, the Examiner concludes that “[w]hen considering the limitations individually and as a whole, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.” Final Act. 5; see also Adv. Act. 2–3 (distinguishing the instant claims from the claims at issue in Enfish and concluding the claims “are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more”). With respect to claims 2–7, 9, 10, 13–17, and 21–28, the Examiner determines that these claims include all the limitations and recite the same abstract idea as claim 1, i.e., “organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that the claims recite additional limitations that are directed to extending the abstract idea and do not add any meaningful limitations that amount to more Appeal 2018-008518 Application 14/319,556 9 than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or any unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application. Id. at 5. The Examiner further finds that, as evidenced by the Specification, the additional elements recited in the claims involve the use of [g]eneric computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Id. at 6 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 32–37, 41, 43, 55). Thus, for principally the same reasons discussed above for claim 1, the Examiner concludes that claims 2–7, 9, 10, 13–17, and 21–28 are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the additional elements they recite, when considered individually and as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Id. at 6. III. Appellant’s Contentions Appellant argues that the Examiner’s § 101 rejection should be reversed because the Examiner reversibly erred in determining the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 10–14; Reply Br. 2–4. In contrast to the Examiner’s rejection, Appellant argues that the claims are not directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 2. In particular, Appellant argues that claim 1 materially differs from the claims at issue in Electric Power Group and the Examiner’s rationale, based on Electric Power Group and set forth in the Final Office Action, is “not supported by the record.” Appeal Br. 10. Rather, Appellant contends that the recited Appeal 2018-008518 Application 14/319,556 10 combination of features distinguishes the focus of claim[] 1 . . . from the focus of the claims in suit in Electric Power Group, and thus Appellant’s claims are “different enough in substance” from the patent-ineligible concept identified by the Electric Power Group court. Id. at 11. Appellant further argues that the “features of claim 1 speak to an improvement and should not be discounted or overly generalized under the ‘directed to’ inquiry.” Id. at 11. Appellant contends that claim 1 “addresses the challenges associated with implementation of a geometric analysis scheme with respect to accurate position determination of outside plant (OSP) elements within telecommunication network infrastructures” and the recited combination of features “amount to an improvement in technology.” Id. at 12–13 (citing Spec. ¶ 13). In particular, Appellant contends that [t]he functionality provided by automatically verifying geocoded maps for position accuracy of OSP elements, and individually checking segments for OSP element position errors over large datasets . . . cannot be distilled down to the routine and conventional activity of “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis”––but should instead be viewed as a technological improvement under the “directed to” inquiry. Id. at 13 (citing Spec. ¶ 27). Appellant also contends that claim 1 is analogous to “the incidental involvement of data operations identified in the patent-eligible concepts identified in Amdocs and Enfish.” Appeal Br. 13. Thus, Appellant maintains that, when looked at as a whole, claim 1 is directed to a patentable, technological improvement over the existing, manual accuracy determination techniques. Id. at 14 (citing McRO, Inc. Appeal 2018-008518 Application 14/319,556 11 v. Bandai, 837 F.3d 1299, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); see also Reply Br. 4 (arguing “that such innovation amounts to a non-abstract improvement to computer technology”) (citing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). IV. Our Analysis Appellant argues claims 1, 15, and 23 as a group and does not present separate arguments for the patentability of remaining claims 2–7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 24–28 . Appeal Br. 10, 14. We select claim 1 as representative and the remaining claims subject to the Examiner’s rejection stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). For the reasons stated below, and based on the findings and analysis provided by the Examiner at pages 2–6 of the Answer, pages 2–3 of the Advisory Action, and pages 3–8 of the Final Office Action, we determine that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and does not contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. A. Guidance Step 1 Under Step l, we consider whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories set forth in § 101, namely “[p]rocess, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–54; see 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 1 recites a “method” and, thus, falls Appeal 2018-008518 Application 14/319,556 12 within the “process” category. Consequently, we proceed to the next step of the analysis. B. Guidance Step 2A Prong 1 Under Step 2A Prong l, we evaluate “whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54; see Alice, 573 U.S. at 216. Claim 1 recites a method that includes (1) partitioning, by one or more processors, a first map into a plurality of segments; (2) identifying, by the one or more processors, at least one segment of the plurality of segments; (3) subdividing, by the one or more processors, the at least one identified segment into multiple segments; (4) performing, by the one or more processors, the geometric analysis on the segments in the first map; and (5) displaying, by the one or more processors via a graphical output including a display window and a control window, each labeled segment on the geocoded map. See Appeal Br. 16–17 (Claims Appendix). Consistent with the Examiner’s analysis, we determine that claim 1 recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, in the form of mathematical concepts because the “partitioning,” “subdividing,” and “performing” steps, for example, each involves the use of mathematical correlations, mathematical relationships, performing mathematical operations, and/or mathematical manipulations of collected data. For example, the “partitioning” step involves using one or more processors to geometrically partition/divide land base maps that are in digital form, i.e., digital map datasets, into a plurality of segments via mathematical operation. See Spec. ¶ 14 (disclosing “embodiments for determining accurate positions of OSP elements may initially include partitioning a first map, which, for example, Appeal 2018-008518 Application 14/319,556 13 may be a land base map as shown in Fig. 1, into a plurality of segments”), ¶ 19 (disclosing that “land base maps were originally developed on paper and subsequently converted into a digital . . . map dataset” and “[w]hen in digital form, land based maps 100 may be represented using the Intelligent Computer Graphics System/Integrated Data Distribution System (ICGS/IDDS) standards, or using the Mapping Application for Public Safety (MAPS)” data formats). The “subdividing” step, likewise, involves using one or more processors to further subdivide the plurality of segments into smaller segments via mathematical operation. Spec. ¶ 14 (disclosing that “[t]he subdividing process of the segments can be iterative, and may continue to divide the previously divided segments into increasingly smaller segments.”). The “performing” step also involves using one or more processors to compute/calculate spatial metrics associated with the first map and a geocoded map via mathematical computation and manipulation of data. See Spec. ¶ 14, ¶ 15 (disclosing that “[g]eometric analysis may include computing spatial metric(s) associated with OSP elements for the segments in the first map” and “[c]orresponding spatial metric(s) may be computed in a geocoded map, which may be generated from coordinate conversion and conflation of the first map”), ¶ 20 (disclosing that “[l]and base maps may be transformed to geocoded maps using a conventional coordinate conversion and conflation process” and the “use of geocoded maps increases the accuracy and provides compatibility with modern GIS databases and mapping software”). Appeal 2018-008518 Application 14/319,556 14 The mere fact, however, that claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the form of mathematical concepts does not automatically render the claim patent-ineligible. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187 (“A claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.”). Thus, we proceed to the Step 2A Prong 2 of the Guidance. C. Guidance Step 2A Prong 2 Under Step 2A Prong 2, we must “(a) [i]dentify[] whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluat[e] those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. Additional elements that merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to an abstract idea fail to integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. See id. at 55. On the record before us, we determine that claim 1, as a whole, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As recited in the claim, in addition to the “partitioning,” “subdividing,” and “performing” steps, the method also includes the steps of “identifying, by the one or more processors, at least one segment of the plurality of segments” and “displaying, by the one or more processors via a graphical output . . . each labeled segment on the geocoded map.” Appeal Br. 16–17 (Claims Appendix). These additional elements, however, do not integrate the abstract idea of claim 1 into a practical application. Rather, consistent with the Examiner’s findings and analysis, we determine that claim 1’s “identifying” and “displaying” steps are merely Appeal 2018-008518 Application 14/319,556 15 data gathering/processing steps, essentially involving collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, necessary to conduct the recited abstract idea, which constitute extra-solution activity insufficient to confer patent-eligibility to the claim. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55, 55 n.31; MPEP § 2106.05(g). See also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that mere data gathering is insufficient to confer patent eligibility). As the Examiner finds (Adv. Act. 2), the Specification discloses that the method of claim 1 is conducted through gathering the appropriate geographic and geocoded mapping data (see Spec. ¶¶ 15–20), performing analysis on the gathered data (id. at ¶¶ 25–31), and displaying the specific results of the “comparisons of the geometric analysis performed” (id. at ¶ 32). The fact that the additional elements relate to OSP mapping data and may be implemented using generic computer equipment (i.e., “by the one or more processors” or “by the one or more processors via a graphical output including a display window and a control window”) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or otherwise render it any less abstract. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (holding that “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”); Fair Warning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be Appeal 2018-008518 Application 14/319,556 16 performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”)). Moreover, we agree with the Examiner findings (Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 7–8; Adv. Act. 2–3) that the additional elements do not add any meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or any unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application. The fact that the claim includes additional elements that “generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use,” without more, is insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Appellant’s arguments do not reveal reversible error in the Examiner’s analysis and findings in this regard. Appellant’s contentions that (1) “the features of claim 1 speak to an improvement” (Appeal Br. 11); (2) the recited combination of features “amount to an improvement in technology” (id. at 13); and (3) when looked at as a whole, claim 1 is directed to a patentable, technological improvement over the existing, manual accuracy determination techniques (id. at 14) are not persuasive because they are conclusory and Appellant does not provide an adequate technical explanation to support them. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that mere lawyer’s arguments or conclusory statements, which are unsupported by concrete factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value). Rather, as the Examiner explains (Ans. 8), the implementation of a geometric analysis scheme amounts to mathematical manipulation of the Appeal 2018-008518 Application 14/319,556 17 collected data (an abstract idea) and the discovery of a new or novel way to mathematically manipulate the collected data does not render the abstract idea patent eligible. To the extent that Appellant is arguing that improvements lie in the mathematical concepts themselves, e.g., “performing . . . the geometric analysis,” the Supreme Court has held that “the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all.” See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591–92; see also id. at 594–95 (“Respondent’s application simply provides a new and presumably better method for calculating alarm limit values.”); cf. In re Gitlin, No. 2018-1461 (Fed. Cir. June 13, 2019), slip op. at 5 (“But merely calling for a mathematical concept to be performed more efficiently or with a particular input does not amount to an application of the mathematical concept that is patent-eligible.”). Appellant’s contention that claim 1 is analogous to “the incidental involvement of data operations identified in the patent-eligible concepts identified in Amdocs and Enfish” (Appeal Br. 13) is equally unpersuasive. Claim 1 is distinguishable from the claims found patent-eligible in those cases. As the Examiner finds (Ans. 5–6), unlike the claims at issue in Amdocs, claim 1 neither recites nor requires that the generic components operate in an “unconventional” manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality. See Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Rather, the Specification indicates that the claimed method merely offers an improvement over performing calculations by hand. See Spec. ¶ 27 (disclosing that “[c]onventional approaches to test for accuracy after conversion and conflation involve a manual process which is extremely time consuming and prone to human error” and “errors exceeding specifications can easily be overlooked by Appeal 2018-008518 Application 14/319,556 18 human operators”), ¶ 13 (“The automatic categorization thus permits an operator to efficiently verify the accuracy of vast amounts of map data.”). As the Examiner further finds (Ans. 7), unlike the claims at issue in Enfish, the additional elements recited in claim 1 do not result in an improvement to a logical structure or process that changes the way the computer itself or other technology functions. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding the claims “are directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table”). Appellant’s arguments regarding the McRO decision (Appeal Br. 14) and Finjan decision (Reply Br. 2–3) are not persuasive because the instant claims are distinguishable from the claims at issue in both of those cases. In McRO, the court found that the claims were not abstract because they were “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314. In particular, the court found that the claims in McRO were directed to the creation of something physical––namely, the display of “lip synchronization and facial expressions” of animated characters on screens for viewing by human eyes and the claimed improvement was to how the physical display operated to produce better quality images. Id. at 1313–14. In Finjan, the court found that the claimed method “employ [ed] a new kind of file that enable[d] a computer security system to do things it could not do before.” Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1305. The court found that, prior to the Finjan invention, virus scans were “limited to recognizing the presence of previously-identified viruses, typically by comparing the code in a downloadable to a database of known suspicious code.” Id. at 1304. Appeal 2018-008518 Application 14/319,556 19 Here, unlike the claims in both McRO and Finjan, Appellant’s claimed invention merely involves performing computations and mathematically manipulating mapping data, and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology or functionality as was the case in McRO and Finjan. Having determined that claim 1 recites a judicial exception but the additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, i.e., the claim is directed to an abstract idea, we proceed to Step 2B of the Guidance. D. Guidance Step 2B Under Step 2B of the Guidance, we determine whether the claim provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether the additional elements beyond the judicial exception, individually and in combination, amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception itself. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. According to the Guidance, “simply append[ing] well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality,” is indicative that an inventive concept is absent. Id. at 56. Consistent with the Examiner’s findings and analysis (Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 8–9; Adv. Act. 2–3), we determine that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, i.e., using mathematical correlations and mathematically manipulating collected mapping data for determining positions of OSP elements, and simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, and thus, fails to provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-ineligible subject matter. Appeal 2018-008518 Application 14/319,556 20 In particular, as the Examiner finds (Final Act. 6), the Specification makes clear that the additional elements recited in the claims involve the use of generic computer components performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. See Spec. ¶¶ 32–37, 41, 43, 55. We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s analysis and findings in this regard. Appellant’s assertion that the “functionality provided by automatically verifying geocoded maps for position accuracy of OSP elements, and individually checking segments for OSP element position errors over large datasets . . . cannot be distilled down to the routine and conventional activity” (Appeal Br. 13) is not persuasive because it is conclusory and Appellant does not identify any specific language in the claim or disclosure in the Specification to support that assertion. De Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 705. Thus, we determine the additional elements recited in claim 1 beyond the abstract idea, individually and in combination, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Alice, 573 U.S. 217–218. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7, 9, 10, 13–17, and 21–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7, 9, 10, 13–17, and 21–28 is affirmed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. Appeal 2018-008518 Application 14/319,556 21 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation