Stephen David. Reddy

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 3, 2019

13739985 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2019)

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.
13/739,985 01/11/2013 Stephen David Reddy 9137
7590 09/03/2019
Stephen D. Reddy
24 Dunkin Drive
Washington Crossing, PA 18977
EXAMINER
SUHOL, DMITRY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/03/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte STEPHEN DAVID REDDY
__________

Appeal 2019-001459
Application 13/739,985
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 21–39 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject
matter. Claims 1–20 have been canceled, and claim 40 has been withdrawn
from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2019-001459
Application 13/739,985

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject “relates to match play golf tournaments played in
a compressed time period, perhaps a single day, on potentially multiple golf
courses amongst both amateur and professional golfers.” Spec. 1;1 Figs. 1–
3, 11. Claims 21 and 31 are independent.
Claim 21 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
21. A method of organizing, scoring, and settling a match play
golf tournament comprising:
(a) illustrating tournament specifications via a website, said
tournament having a plurality of rounds of match play
matches for each said day of said tournament,
(b) processing the entry into said tournament of four or more
amateur golfers having a USGA handicap index, and if
said tournament is a Pro-Am format, a plurality of
professional golfers, and after said amateur and
professional golfers have played a round of golf on an 18
hole golf course rated by the USGA on each day of said
tournament in which said golfers are still participating,
(c) receiving and storing data for a single round of golf for
each said golfer for each said day of said tournament in
which said golfer is still participating in a database or
storage area accessible for later use, said data comprising:
i. player’s USGA handicap index or course handicap,
ii. gross scores recorded for each hole,
iii. golf course played,
iv. tee box used,
(d) illustrating on said website the tournament brackets and
the position within said brackets of all said tournament
participants,

1 As the Specification does not include line numbers, we reference the
Specification by page numbers only.
Appeal 2019-001459
Application 13/739,985

3
(e) determining the winner(s) of each said golf match for each
said round of golf matches for each said day of said
tournament, said determination comprising:
i. referencing said submitted scores and data in said
database or storage area for said day of said
tournament,
ii. comparing in a predetermined manner the hole by
hole scores, adjusted for player handicap as
specified for said tournament, for each said golfer
participating in each said golf match, and
iii. totaling the number of holes won by each said
participant, or team of said participants, in each said
match by having the lowest adjusted score for any
given hole amongst all said participants, or team of
said participants, in each said match, and
(f) illustrating on said website the results of all said matches
and the finishing position in said tournament of all said
golfers participating in said tournament,
whereby said website and database or storage area are the
apparatus that make said tournament possible even with
geographic dispersion of said golfers, without any contact
between said golfers, without any knowledge of the
identity of the other golfer entrants or acquaintance
between them, and without any contact with any other
person not participating in said tournament, and
whereby said tournament can be completed in a shorter time
period than otherwise required for the number of rounds
of match play matches within said tournament by
requiring multiple tournament rounds for each said round
of actual golf round played by each said golfer on each
said day of said tournament, and
whereby said illustration of match and tournament results and
finishing places helps encourage participation by allowing
each participant to see the results for all tournament
participants and possible future opponents within said
Appeal 2019-001459
Application 13/739,985

4
tournament, generating excitement associated with
“bracketology”.

ANALYSIS
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) (“Alice”).
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) (“Mayo”)). 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)
(“Bilski”) (“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)
(“Flook”)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69
(1972) (“Benson”)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include
physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products”
Appeal 2019-001459
Application 13/739,985

5
(Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981) (“Diehr”)); “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
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; 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); 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 (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
Appeal 2019-001459
Application 13/739,985

6
[abstract idea].’” Id. (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.
The PTO 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) (“Revised Guidance”). 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);2 and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see Manual for Patent Examining Procedure
(“MPEP”) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. 2018)).3
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
are not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field
(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or

2 Referred to as “Revised Step 2A, Prong 1” in the Revised Guidance
(hereinafter “Step 2A(1)”).
3 Referred to as “Revised Step 2A, Prong 2” in the Revised Guidance
(hereinafter “Step 2A(2)”).
Appeal 2019-001459
Application 13/739,985

7
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.4
See Revised Guidance.5

Analysis under the Revised Guidance
Claims 21–30
Step 1 – Statutory Category

Appellant argues claims 21–30 as a group, and does not present
arguments for the dependent claims apart from the arguments presented for
the independent claim. Appeal Br. 6–14. We select claim 21 as
representative, and claims 22–30 stand or fall with claim 21. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Independent claim 21, as a method (process) claim, recites one of the
enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, the issue before us is whether claim 21 is directed to a judicial
exception without significantly more.
Step 2A(1) – Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
The Examiner determines that claim 21 is “directed to the abstract
idea of organizing, scoring, and settling a match play golf tournament”

4 Items (3) and (4) continue to be collectively referred to as “Step 2B” of the
Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice.
5 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(January 7, 2019) (hereinafter “Revised Guidance”)
(https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf).
Appeal 2019-001459
Application 13/739,985

8
which is “similar to the kind of ‘organizing human activity’ at issue in Alice
and Planet Bingo.[6]” Final Act. 2–3 (italics added). 7
The Examiner notes that claim 21 also recites
method steps [that] describe the concept of receiving, storing,
comparing data and displaying the result of the comparison
[which] is similar to certain concepts found by the courts to be
abstract such as “obtaining and comparing intangible data” in
CyberSource,[8] “collecting and comparing known information”
in Classen[9] and “collecting information, analyzing it, and
displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” in
Electric[] Power Group.[10]
Id. at 3 (italics added).
Appellant contends that “[t]he claimed method apparatus helps
improve the technology of conducting match play golf tournaments, and
therefore the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.” Appeal Br. 1111
(bolding omitted; italics added). We also note Appellant’s contention that
“the[] limitations make possible a brand new type of match play
tournament.” Id. at 12 (emphasis added).
As to Step 2A(1), which analyzes whether claim 21 recites a judicial
exception, we determine that claim 21 recites a method of organizing human
activity that manages personal behavior including following rules or
instructions. See Revised Guidance 52 (identifying methods of organizing
human activity as “managing personal behavior or relationships or

6 Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 Fed. Appx. 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
7 Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), dated Aug. 18, 2017.
8 CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
9 Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir.
2011).
10 Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
11 Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Apr. 13, 2018.
Appeal 2019-001459
Application 13/739,985

9
[activities] between people (including social activities, teaching, and
following rules or instructions)”); n.13 (quoting Interval Licensing LCC v.
AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344–45 (concluding that “[s]tanding alone, the
act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting
the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,”
observing that the district court “pointed to the nontechnical human activity
of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or
conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the
focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.”); quoting In re Smith, 815
F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that “[a]pplicants’ claims,
directed to rules for conducting a wagering game” are abstract)).
Here, for example, claim 21 recites “illustrating tournament
specifications . . ., said tournament having a plurality of rounds of match
play matches for each said day of said tournament;” “processing the entry
into said tournament of four or more amateur golfers having a USGA
handicap index . . .;” “receiving and storing data for a single round of golf
. . .;” “illustrating . . . the tournament brackets and the position within said
brackets of all said tournament participants;” “determining the winner(s) of
each said golf match . . .;” and “illustrating on said website the results of all
said matches . . .;” “whereby said tournament can be completed in a shorter
time period . . .;” and “whereby said illustration of match and tournament
results and finishing places helps encourage participation . . . .” Appeal Br.
15–17 (Claims App.).
Standing alone, the method of organizing, scoring, and settling a
match play golf tournament including steps of illustrating tournament
specifications, processing entry into the tournament, receiving and storing
Appeal 2019-001459
Application 13/739,985

10
data, illustrating tournament brackets, determining winners, and illustrating
results, is nontechnical human activity such as organizing a sporting match,
a longstanding practice. Thus, these limitations, under the broadest
reasonable interpretation, are steps that recite a method of organizing human
activity that manages personal behavior including following rules or
instructions.
Appellant’s alleged non-obviousness or novelty (“improve” or “new”
type of match play tournament (Appeal Br. 11–12)) of the claimed method
reciting steps for illustrating tournament specifications via a website and
receiving and storing data in a database (steps (a) and (c) of claim 21) (see
also id. at 6–7)—an abstract idea—is immaterial to the claim’s eligibility for
patenting under § 101. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839
F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is
still an abstract idea.”); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d
1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“No matter how much of an advance in the
finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of
abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract
application realm.”). See also Ans. 912 (“Appellant’s Argument #1 does not
present a challenge to the finding that Claims 21 and 31 are directed to a
judicial exception that is an abstract idea.”). Thus, we are not persuaded that
the Examiner failed in respect to that alleged by Appellant, and instead find
that the Examiner treated claim 21 and the limitations therein in the same
manner as did the Federal Circuit with the claim at issue in the Smith
decision because claim 21 also recites rules for conducting a game. See also

12 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated Oct. 3, 2018.
Appeal 2019-001459
Application 13/739,985

11
id. at 11 (explaining that the combination of claimed limitations
“nevertheless . . . can be described as ‘how to play golf according to a new
match play format’ or ‘a new set of golf game rules’; and is similar to In re
Smith.” (italics added)).
Accordingly, under Step 2A(1), we conclude that claims 21–30 recite
a method of organizing human activity, and thus, a judicial exception, i.e.,
an abstract idea.
Step 2A(2) – Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical
Application?
If the claims recite a patent-ineligible concept, as we conclude above,
we proceed to the “practical application” Step 2A, second prong, in which
we determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a
practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are
any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s);
and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination
to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical
application. The Revised Guidance is “designed to more accurately and
consistently identify claims that recite a practical application of a judicial
exception [] and thus are not ‘directed to’ a judicial exception.” Revised
Guidance 53.
Claim 21 requires performing the above-described “illustrating,”
“receiving and storing data,” “illustrating . . . the tournament brackets,”
“determining the winner(s),” and “illustrating . . . the results” steps using “a
website” and “a database or storage area.” Appeal Br. 15–16 (Claims App.).
Appellant contends that “[t]he claimed method is more than mere
instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, does not contain
Appeal 2019-001459
Application 13/739,985

12
extra-solution activity, has computer elements that are integral to the method,
and is not a field of use limitation, and therefore results in significantly more
than an abstract idea.” Appeal Br. 12 (bolding omitted); see also Reply Br.
8. In support of this contention, Appellant contends, among other things, that
the claimed limitations “make possible a brand new type of match play
tournament” and “[h]aving scores submitted to a database . . . [is] an integral
step to conducting tournaments . . . .” Appeal Br. 12–13; see also Reply Br.
7 (arguing that the claimed method apparatus helps improve the technology
of conducting match play golf tournaments), 9 (arguing that the Examiner is
incorrect to state that the claims do not appear to describe a specific way to
solve a problem because Appellant’s claims solve the problem of match play
golf tournaments that “are likely never conducted over a single day or
weekend,” that like McRo13 “the proposed invention is relying on the
combination of the unconventional scores constraint along with other
scoring techniques and tournament formats that can help overcome the
negative impact of having to use the same scores in multiple rounds”), 10
(arguing that the claimed invention is a computer related technology because
“the application claims an on-demand system or apparatus for conducting
match play tournaments potentially every day, on very short notice, and
without any interaction with other humans” and that “[i]n the past there
never would have been any demand for an on-demand match play
tournament”), 11 (arguing that Appellant’s “unconventional element
compresses the time frame significantly, the customized apparatus or

13 McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed.
Cir. 2016)
Appeal 2019-001459
Application 13/739,985

13
computer facilitates an on-demand system, and the net result could very well
be an improved computer related technology of conducting match play golf
tournament,” which is “actually non-existent today”).
These arguments are unpersuasive for reasons similar to those already
discussed above. Further, the record evidence does not show that the
architecture of the computing system is improved by illustrating tournament
specifications via a website or receiving and storing tournament data on a
database. There is no factual evidence that these claimed steps make the
computing system more efficient and improve the functionality of the
computing system itself.14 In other words, the use of a website and a
database in the steps of organizing, scoring, and setting a match play golf
tournament is insufficient evidence upon which to base a conclusion that
claim 21 recites an improvement to the functionality within a computing
system. See, e.g., Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada
(U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required
calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not
materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”). See
also Ans. 16–17 (explaining that “[t]he McRo court relied on an explanation
in the specification that described how the claimed rules enabled a computer
to improve an existing technological process, unlike cases where a computer
was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process” and that “[t]he
McRo court indicated that the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in
computer animation ‘improved [the] existing technological process’, rather

14 In contrast, in Enfish, “the plain focus of the claims is on an improvement
to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a
computer is used in its ordinary capacity.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336.
Appeal 2019-001459
Application 13/739,985

14
than merely use[] the computer [as] a ‘tool to automate conventional
activity’”), 17 (explaining that “Appellant does not claim improvements in
the function of the computer components,” that “[p]rogramming a computer
to coordinate golf match play and [to] process different scoring does not
amount to improving an existing technological process,” and that
Appellant’s method merely “uses the computer’s electronic power to rapidly
collect input data, store that data in an efficient and organized manner,
display the data on numerous platforms[,] and provide a website with
continuous access,” which “is not an improvement to the technologies being
used” because those “technologies, computer components and
programming” are utilized to “perform[] their conventional functions”).
In addition, the Specification discloses that “[i]rrespective of who
submits the data, it would be submitted electronically via a computer, a
smart phone, or some other PDI device that can utilize necessary software to
transmit the scores.” Spec. 14. The Specification does not disclose
particulars relating components that operate the recited “website” and
“database or storage area” of claim 21. See Spec., passim. Thus, any
component that operates the recited “website” and “database or storage area”
are generic components of devices that perform generic functions of
receiving data, defining data, displaying, and storing data.
Upon review of Appellant’s Specification, a preponderance of the
evidence supports a determination that the claimed “website” and “database
or storage area” are generic computing components or activities configured
to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely to use a computer as
a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) (“As explained by
the Supreme Court, in order to transform a judicial exception into a patent-
Appeal 2019-001459
Application 13/739,985

15
eligible application, the additional element or combination of elements must
do ‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words
‘apply it’” (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 222–26) (alteration in original).
Although acknowledging that hardware and software can make non-
abstract improvements to computer technology,15 we determine that claim
21 as a whole (i.e., including recitations of “website” and “database or
storage area”) fails to integrate the method of organizing human activity into
a practical application of the method of organizing human activity.
Step 2B — “Inventive Concept” or “Significantly More”
The 2019 Guidance further explains that “[i]t is possible that a claim
that does not ‘integrate’ a recited judicial exception is nonetheless patent
eligible,” for example, because “the claim may recite additional elements
that render the claim patent eligible even though a judicial exception is
recited in a separate claim element.” See Revised Guidance 56. In other
words, “the additional elements recited in the claims provided ‘significantly
more’ than the recited judicial exception (e.g., because the additional
elements were unconventional in combination).” Id. (emphasis added).
The Examiner determines that claim 21
does[] not include additional elements, along or in combination,
that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception because the addition of limitations such as “via
a website”, “database or storage area”, “apparatus” alone or in
combination amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to
implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of
generic computer structure that serves to perform generic

15 See Revised Guidance 52, n.11 (citing Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems,
Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Appeal 2019-001459
Application 13/739,985

16
computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known to the pertinent
industry. The recitation of the website, database or apparatus is
not enough by itself to transform the exception into a patentable
invention, because these limitations are generic computer
components performing generic computer functions at a high
level of generality such as displaying, transmitting, storing,
retrieving and processing data through the program that enables
the operation of the game. Merely using these generic computer
components to perform the identified basic functions does not
constitute meaningful limitations that would amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea.
Final Act. 3–4.
Appellant contends that claim 21 “contain[s] elements, which
considered in their entirety, are unconventional and not well understood in
the field, contain an inventive concept, and result in significantly more than
an abstract idea because the result is a completely new kind of match play
tournament that does not exist today.” Appeal Br. 6–7 (bolding omitted;
italics added); see also Reply Br. 4.16 Appellant also contends that “the
combination of claim elements 21(a) and 21(c) are clearly unconventional”
and that “[t]aken together, 21(a) and 21(c) describe multiple tournament
rounds for each round of actual scores submitted.” Appeal Br. 7; see also id.
at 8 (arguing that “a requirement of using a single set of scores is extremely
unconventional” and that “[the] Examiner, as evidenced by statements in
Office Actions, has not fully understood the proposed invention or how it
relates to the prior art”); Reply Br. 2 (“Appellant continues to be concerned
about the Examiners’ demonstrated lack of understanding the nuances of
match play golf tournaments”), 8.

16 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed Dec. 3, 2018.
Appeal 2019-001459
Application 13/739,985

17
Appellant’s contention of “a completely new kind of match play
tournament that does not exist today” is not persuasive for the same reasons
discussed above––that novelty is an issue that is separate from an analysis
under Step 2B. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d at
1151; SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d at 1163. Appellant’s
contention that “[t]aken together, [steps (a) and (c) of claim 21]” “is
extremely unconventional” (see Appeal Br. 7–8) is akin to arguing that the
combination of steps (a) and (c) of claim 21 is nonobvious. As with novelty,
nonobviousness is also an issue that is separate from an analysis under Step
2B.
In this case, we agree with the Examiner that claim 21 does not
provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent
eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Final Act. 3–4; see also
Ans. 10 (“The additional [claim] elements are considered to be general
purpose computer components, and the certain features/functions are
considered conventional ones performed by general purpose computer
components.”).
Further, even if the Examiner misinterprets the particularities of the
rules for organizing, scoring, and settling a match play golf tournament as
recited in claim 21 (see Appeal Br. 5–6, 8 (arguing that “[t]he Examiner’s
statement implies that he is thinking that match play golf tournaments are not
bracketed tournaments, while NCAA tournaments are. In fact, they are both
bracketed tournaments”); see also Reply Br. 2, 8), that does not negate our
determination, as discussed above, that the additional elements of “a
website” and “a database or storage area” are conventional computing
Appeal 2019-001459
Application 13/739,985

18
components or activities, i.e., are “well-understood, routine, conventional” in
the field.
Therefore, based upon the findings and legal conclusions above, on
this record and in consideration of the Revised Guidance, we agree with the
Examiner that claim 21 is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, such
that we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter. We further sustain the rejection of claims
22–30, which fall with claim 21.
Claims 31–39
Independent claim 31 recites similar limitations to those of
independent claim 21. Appeal Br. 15–17, 20–23 (Claims App.).
As to claim 31 and to claims 32–39 depending therefrom, Appellant
relies on the same arguments presented above for claims 21–30. Id. at 14.
As we find no deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
21 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter for the reasons
discussed above, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 31–
39 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 21–39
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
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