SK Planet Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 8, 2020

14951247 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 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.
14/951,247 11/24/2015 Jongwon WOO 33805-36673/US 5749
758 7590 04/08/2020
FENWICK & WEST LLP
SILICON VALLEY CENTER
801 CALIFORNIA STREET
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94041
EXAMINER
HAQ, NAEEM U
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/08/2020 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):
PTOC@Fenwick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONGWON WOO
Appeal 2019-006245
Application 14/951,247
Technology Center 3600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, 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 1–4 and 6–10, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. Claim 5 has been cancelled. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SK Planet Co.,
Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006245
Application 14/951,247

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “a method of recommending a gas station
associated with a payment application.” Spec. 1:9–10. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of recommending a gas station associated
with a payment application installed in a terminal, the method
comprising:
receiving, by a service server, destination information
from the terminal;
calculating, by the service server, an amount of necessary
fuel based on the destination information and vehicle
information for the terminal;
comparing, by the service server, an amount of remaining
fuel for the terminal and the calculated amount of necessary fuel
to determine whether fueling is needed;
when the fueling is needed, extracting, by the service
server, information on a recommended gas station from
information on gas stations located on a moving route to a
destination based on payment-related information for the
terminal; and
providing, by the service server, the extracted information
on the recommended gas station to the terminal, wherein the
payment-related information includes at least one of information
on a payment or service membership card, information on a
discount rate of the card, information on a usage result of the
card, or information on a usage pattern of the card, and is
obtained from the payment application of the terminal, and
wherein the information on the recommended gas station
is extracted based on the at least one of the information on
payment or service membership card, the information on a
discount rate of the card, the information on the usage result of
the card, or the information on the usage pattern of the card,
wherein the extracting of the information on the recommended
gas station comprises:
Appeal 2019-006245
Application 14/951,247

3
requesting, by the service server, the payment
application of the terminal for payment-related
information including information on a service
membership card of the terminal to obtain the payment-
related information; and
after checking, by the service server, the
information on a service membership card of the terminal,
extracting information on a gas station having a highest
discount rate from information on gas stations located on
the moving route based on the information on the service
membership card of the terminal as the recommended gas
station, or extracting information on a certain gas station
as information on the recommended gas station in
consideration of a usage pattern of the service membership
card of the terminal by the service server.
REJECTION
Claims 1–4 and 6–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
a judicial exception without significantly more. Final Act. 3–7.
OPINION
The Examiner determines the following:
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are directed to recommending a gas
station to a user based on the user’s destination information,
amount of necessary fuel to reach the destination, amount of
remaining fuel, and payment-related information. This is an
abstract idea because it is similar to “a method of organizing a
human activity” at issue in Int. Ventures v. Cap One Bank ‘382.
The courts have ruled tailoring content based on information
about the user is an abstract idea. In the instant application,
claims 1, 8, and 9 are directed to recommending a gas station (i.e.
tailoring content) based on the user’s destination information,
amount of necessary fuel to reach the destination, amount of
remaining fuel, and payment-related information (i.e. based on
information about the user).
Appeal 2019-006245
Application 14/951,247

4
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are directed to [an] abstract idea because
they are similar to “an idea of itself” and “organizing a human
activity” at issue in Electric Power Group. The courts have ruled
collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain
results of the collection and analysis is an abstract idea. In the
instant application, claims 1, 8, and 9 are directed to receiving
destination information (i.e.[,] collecting information),
calculating an amount of necessary fuel based on the destination
information and vehicle information; comparing an amount of
remaining fuel and the calculated amount of necessary fuel to
determine whether fueling is needed (i.e.[,] analyzing the
information), and extracting information on a recommended gas
station from information on gas stations located on a moving
route to a destination based on payment-related information; and
providing the extracted information on the recommended gas
station (i.e.[,] displaying certain results of the collection and
analysis).
Final Act. 4–5; see also Final Act. 5–6 (determining the dependent claims
are directed to an abstract idea), and 6–7 (determining the claims do not
recite significantly more than an abstract idea).
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 U.S. 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 Court’s two-part 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
Appeal 2019-006245
Application 14/951,247

5
(“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 waterproof 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
Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not
become nonstatutory simply because it uses a 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 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. (citation omitted)
Appeal 2019-006245
Application 14/951,247

6
(citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that
an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known
structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
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 (quotation marks 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. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[]
fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“2019 Revised Guidance”).2 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of
internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51; see
also October 2019 Update at 1.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, we
first look to whether the claim recites:

2 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance.
USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October
2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
Appeal 2019-006245
Application 14/951,247

7
(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) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed.
Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).3
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under
Step 2B, 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.
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56.

3 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance – Section III(A)(2), 84
Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
Appeal 2019-006245
Application 14/951,247

8
Are the claims patent-eligible?
Step 1
Claim 1 recites a method, which falls with the “process” category of
35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 8 recites a non-transitory computer-readable
medium, which falls with the “manufacture” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 9 recites a server, which falls with the “machine” category of 35
U.S.C. § 101. Thus, we must determine whether the claims recite a judicial
exception and fail to integrate the exception into a practical application. See
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. If both elements are
satisfied, the claim is directed to a judicial exception under the first step of
the Alice/Mayo test. See id.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 recites the following steps:
[i] receiving, by a service server, destination information
from the terminal;
[ii] calculating, by the service server, an amount of
necessary fuel based on the destination information and vehicle
information for the terminal;
[iii] comparing, by the service server, an amount of
remaining fuel for the terminal and the calculated amount of
necessary fuel to determine whether fueling is needed;
[iv] when the fueling is needed, extracting, by the service
server, information on a recommended gas station from
information on gas stations located on a moving route to a
destination based on payment-related information for the
terminal; and
[v] providing, by the service server, the extracted
information on the recommended gas station to the terminal,
wherein the payment-related information includes at least
one of information on a payment or service membership card,
information on a discount rate of the card, information on a usage
Appeal 2019-006245
Application 14/951,247

9
result of the card, or information on a usage pattern of the card,
and is obtained from the payment application of the terminal, and
wherein the information on the recommended gas station
is extracted based on the at least one of the information on
payment or service membership card, the information on a
discount rate of the card, the information on the usage result of
the card, or the information on the usage pattern of the card,
wherein the extracting of the information on the
recommended gas station comprises:
[vi] requesting, by the service server, the payment
application of the terminal for payment-related information
including information on a service membership card of the
terminal to obtain the payment-related information; and
[vii] after checking, by the service server, the information
on a service membership card of the terminal, extracting
information on a gas station having a highest discount rate from
information on gas stations located on the moving route based on
the information on the service membership card of the terminal
as the recommended gas station, or extracting information on a
certain gas station as information on the recommended gas
station in consideration of a usage pattern of the service
membership card of the terminal by the service server.
Steps [i]–[vii] describe the process of recommending a gas station to a
user based on information about the user (“payment-related information”).
Thus, steps [i]–[vii] describe “advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors,” which are “commercial or legal interactions.” 2019 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, these steps recite the abstract concept of
“[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity.” Id.
In addition, steps [i]–[iii] could be broadly interpreted to include a
driver considering their destination and the likely amount of fuel needed to
travel to their destination, and observing the vehicle’s gas gauge to
determine whether they will need to stop for gas on the way to their
Appeal 2019-006245
Application 14/951,247

10
destination. Thus, steps [i]–[iii] are one or more of “observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion.” Id. Therefore, these steps also recite the abstract
concept of “[m]ental processes.” Id.
In addition, steps [iv]–[v] could be broadly interpreted to include
recommending a gas station because the gas station is located along the
driver’s route based on information about the driver. Thus, steps [iv]–[v] are
one or more of “observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion.” Id. Therefore,
these steps also recite the abstract concept of “[m]ental processes.” Id.
In addition, steps [vi]–[vii] describe additional details of making the
recommendation because these steps describe requesting the information
about the driver, and using that information to determine the
recommendation. Thus, steps [vi]–[vii] are one or more of “observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion.” Id. Therefore, these steps also recite the
abstract concept of “[m]ental processes.” Id.
The Federal Circuit has held that if a method can be performed by
human thought alone, or by a human using pen and paper, it is merely an
abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under § 101. CyberSource Corp. v.
Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[A] method
that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and
is not patent-eligible under § 101.”). Similarly, The Federal Circuit has
found claims directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying
certain results of the collection and analysis” as directed to a patent-
ineligible abstract idea. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d
1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner
(Final Act. 4–5) that the various steps [i]–[vii] recited in independent claim 1
all describe an abstract idea because they describe collecting information
Appeal 2019-006245
Application 14/951,247

11
(“receiving . . . destination information,” “requesting . . . payment-related
information”), analyzing the information (“calculating . . . an amount of
necessary fuel,” “comparing . . . an amount of remaining fuel,” “extracting
. . . recommended gas station”), and displaying certain results of the
collection and analysis (“providing . . . the extracted information on the
recommended gas station”). The abstract idea, even when automated to
reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen
and paper, remains an abstract idea. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That
purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a
computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v.
Benson.”).
Therefore, we determine claim 1 recites a judicial exception.
We also determine claims 8 and 9 recite a judicial exception for the
same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Because claims 1, 8, and 9 recite a judicial exception, we next
determine if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
In addition to the limitations of claim 1 discussed above that recite
abstract concepts, claims 1 and 8 further recite a “service server” and a
“terminal. Claim 9 further recites a “processor.”
The Specification does not provide additional details that would
distinguish the additional limitations from a generic implementation on
general purpose computers. See Spec. 11:20–23 (“the terminal 100
according to the embodiment may include not only a mobile terminal such
as a smart phone, a tablet personal computer (tablet PC), a personal digital
Appeal 2019-006245
Application 14/951,247

12
assistant (PDA), a portable multimedia player (PMP), MP3 player, etc., but
also include a fixed terminal such as a smart television (smart TV), a
desktop computer, etc.”), 18:10–18 (describing the “service server” as
including modules, where “a module is an element which performs a
predetermined function, and may be implemented by hardware, software, or
a combination of the hardware and the software”), 35:14–16 (“the
computing system may be implemented by at least one physical device such
as a memory and a processor, which operate while internal modules perform
an operation on electronic data”); see also Final Act. 6–7.
The recited computer-related limitations are insufficient to integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, there is no
improvement to the functioning of the computer, but, instead, the computer
merely implements the abstract idea. In this case, we do not see any
particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; nor do we see
any transformation. That is, we do not see any of the additionally recited
elements applying or using the judicial exception in any meaningful way
beyond generally linking the judicial exception to the recited elements.
Accordingly, we determine that claims 1, 8, and 9 are directed to a
judicial exception because they do not recite additional elements that
integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Is there something else in the claims that ensures that they are
directed to significantly more than a patent ineligible concept?
Step 2B
Because claims 1, 8, and 9 are directed to a judicial exception, we
next determine, according to Alice, whether the claims recite an element, or
Appeal 2019-006245
Application 14/951,247

13
combination of elements that is enough to ensure that the claims are directed
to significantly more than a judicial exception.
In addition to the limitations of claim 1 discussed above that recite
abstract concepts, claims 1 and 8 further recite a “service server” and a
“terminal. Claim 9 further recites a “processor.”
2019 Revised Guidance, Section III (B) states:
In accordance with existing guidance, an examiner’s
conclusion that an additional element (or combination of
elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must
be supported with a factual determination. For more information
concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, conventional
activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO
Berkheimer Memorandum[4].
The Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III (A)(1) states:
A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine,
conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the
additional elements as well-understood or routine or
conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially
available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional
elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does
not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements
to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). A finding that an element is well-
understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the
fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such
element.
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56, n. 36.

4 USPTO Memorandum of April 19, 2018, Changes in Examination
Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter
Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) (Apr. 19, 2018), available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-
20180419.PDF.
Appeal 2019-006245
Application 14/951,247

14
The Specification discloses “the terminal 100 according to the
embodiment may include not only a mobile terminal such as a smart phone,
a tablet personal computer (tablet PC), a personal digital assistant (PDA), a
portable multimedia player (PMP), MP3 player, etc., but also include a fixed
terminal such as a smart television (smart TV), a desktop computer, etc.”
Spec. 11:20–23. The Specification further discloses the “service server” as
including modules, where “a module is an element which performs a
predetermined function, and may be implemented by hardware, software, or
a combination of the hardware and the software.” Spec. 18:10–18. The
Specification further discloses “the computing system may be implemented
by at least one physical device such as a memory and a processor, which
operate while internal modules perform an operation on electronic data.”
Spec. 35:14–16. Thus, the Specification describes the “service server,”
“terminal,” and “processor” in a manner that indicates that these elements
are sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe
the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See
Spec. 11:20–23, 18:10–18, 35:14–16; see also Final Act. 6–7.
Further, the Specification does not provide additional details about the
computers that would distinguish the recited components from generic
implementation individually and generic implementation in the combination.
See Spec. 11:20–23, 18:10–18, 35:14–16; see also Final Act. 6–7.
In view of Appellant’s Specification, the claimed computer
components are reasonably determined to be generic, purely conventional
computer elements. Thus, the claims do no more than require generic
computer elements to perform generic computer functions, rather than
improve computer capabilities.
Appeal 2019-006245
Application 14/951,247

15
Accordingly, we determine that claims 1, 8, and 9 are not directed to
significantly more than a patent ineligible concept.
Appellant’s principal arguments
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
i. The claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical
application because “[t]he additional elements relate to a specific
improvement of extracting information on a gas station based on the highest
discount rate or usage pattern of the service membership card, and enabling
the user to select the gas station that is beneficial to the users.” Appeal Br.
10; see also Reply Br. 2–3 (“The claimed invention is not directed to
‘certain methods of organizing human activities’ nor to an abstract idea.”).
ii.
[I]t is non-conventional and non-routine to “requesting, by the
service server, the payment application of the terminal for
payment-related information including information on a service
membership card of the terminal to obtain the payment-related
information,” and “after checking, by the service server, the
information on a service membership card of the terminal,
extracting information on a gas station having a highest discount
rate from information on gas stations located on the moving route
based on the information on the service membership card of the
terminal as the recommended gas station, or extracting
information on a certain gas station as information on the
recommended gas station in consideration of a usage pattern of
the service membership card of the terminal by the service
server.”
Appeal Br. 12 (citing Berkheimer Memorandum); see also Reply Br. 3–4.
iii. “[T]the Advisory Action acknowledges that claim 1 is no
longer obvious, and therefore, claim 1 should be interpreted to recite
‘substantially more’ than a mere abstract idea.” Appeal Br. 14.
Appeal 2019-006245
Application 14/951,247

16
Analysis
Appellant’s argument (i) does not show any error because, as we
explain above, the elements of claims 1, 8, and 9 are the abstract concepts of
“[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity” and “[m]ental processes.”
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. We also explain that the claims
do not recite additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception
into a practical application, and are not directed to significantly more than a
patent ineligible concept. A novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely
abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent-ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90
(rejecting the suggestion that Sections 102, 103, and 112 might perform the
appropriate screening function and noting that in Mayo such an approach
“would make the ‘law of nature’ exception . . . a dead letter”). In short, the
claims recite a computer system for performing the abstract idea. Thus, on
the record before us, the claim limitations do not improve the functionality
of the various hardware components, nor do they achieve an improved
technological result in conventional industry practice. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai
Namco Games Am., Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016). More
particularly, we do not agree that the claimed invention improves the
technology as a whole. See also Ans. 9 (“Providing a recommendation for a
gas station based on things like highest discount rate or usage pattern of a
membership card is a type of targeted advertising/marketing that is [an]
abstract idea because it covers certain methods of organizing human
activity.”).
Appellant’s argument (ii) does not show any error because, as we
explain above, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the
recited judicial exception into a practical application, and are not directed to
Appeal 2019-006245
Application 14/951,247

17
significantly more than a patent ineligible concept. Our analysis above
considers the claims in light of current USPTO guidance, including the
Berkheimer Memorandum. Further, as we explain above, the Specification
does not provide additional details about the computers that would
distinguish the recited components from conventional components, and from
generic implementation individually and generic implementation in the
combination. See Spec. 11:20–23, 18:10–18, 35:14–16; see also Final Act.
6–7, Ans. 9.
Appellant’s argument (iii) does not show any error because claim 1
being no longer obvious does not make claim 1 any less abstract. See Ans.
9–10.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, and 9.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–4, 6, 7, and 10, which
are not separately argued with particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–10 101 Judicial Exception 1–4, 6–10

Appeal 2019-006245
Application 14/951,247

18
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED