Stephen Mitchell et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 15, 2020

2020004578 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 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.
12/501,036 07/10/2009 Stephen John Mitchell REFD.P0098US/1001054050 3520
29053 7590 12/15/2020
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
2200 ROSS AVENUE
SUITE 3600
DALLAS, TX 75201-7932
EXAMINER
POLLOCK, GREGORY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2020 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):
doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEPHEN JOHN MITCHELL and CARLTON CRAIG HAYNIE
____________

Appeal 2020-004578
Application 12/501,036
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 4–6, 10–14, 16, 18–20, 24, and 26. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,”
filed October 15, 2020) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
January 27, 2020) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed May 15,
2019). Appellant identifies Refinitiv US Organization LLC as the real party
in interest (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2020-004578
Application 12/501,036

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The Specification states that “[e]mbodiments of the invention are
related to methods, systems, and software configured to upload weather data
from a database, process said weather data, and . . . distribute commodity-
related weather information to users without requiring time consuming
analysis by a meteorologist” (Spec. ¶ 2).
Claims 1 and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of integrating datasets from different data
sources to generate a commodity forecast for transmission to a
user, comprising:
[(a)] receiving a first dataset from a first data source, the
first dataset including weather information, the first data source
including a weather information database stored on a non-
transitory computer-readable medium and communicably
coupled to a forecast data server, wherein the weather
information includes a forecasted trajectory of a system, the
weather information database configured to periodically monitor
at least a national weather service;
[(b)] receiving a second dataset from a second data
source, the second dataset including commodity production
information including crude oil and natural gas production for
producing facilities and refineries, the second data source
including a commodity production database stored on the non-
transitory computer-readable medium and communicably
coupled to the forecast data server; the commodity production
database configured to periodically monitor at least a minerals
management service, said commodity production information
further comprising at least one of oil and gas production
numbers, power-generating facility information, current
production or output outages;
[(c)] transmitting the first dataset and the second dataset
to the forecast data server;
Appeal 2020-004578
Application 12/501,036

3
[(d)] processing the first dataset and the second dataset to
generate the commodity forecast, wherein the processing
includes:
[(d1)] executing a plurality of algorithms to
prioritize each of the weather information and the
commodity production information in the first dataset and
the second dataset, wherein the prioritization is based on
variables including a forecasted wave height and wind
speed; and
[(d2)] generating, by the forecast data server, the
commodity forecast, wherein the commodity forecast
indicates possible short-term outages or susceptible long-
term outages for offshore oil or natural gas facilities lying
in the forecasted trajectory of the system, wherein the
generating includes executing, by the forecast data server,
at least one pre-determined algorithm configured to
calculate the commodity forecast from the weather
information and the commodity production information in
the first dataset and the second dataset, the commodity
forecast comprising at least in part a report detailing the
underlying analysis,
wherein the short-term outages are when offshore
oil or natural gas facilities lying in the forecasted trajectory
of the system are forecasted to endure external forces over
a force range according to the weather information and
commodity production information in the first dataset and
the second dataset,
wherein the susceptible long-term outages are when
offshore oil or natural gas facilities lying in the forecasted
trajectory of the system are forecasted to endure external
forces exceeding the force range according to the weather
information and commodity production information in the
first dataset and the second dataset; and
[(e)] transmitting the commodity forecast in real-time to
a user via a communication module coupled to the forecast data
server and presenting the commodity forecast on at least one
graphical user interface viewable by the user through a monitor
communicably coupled to a user interface.
Appeal 2020-004578
Application 12/501,036

4
REJECTION
Claims 1, 4–6, 10–14, 16, 18–20, 24, and 26 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the pending claims as a group (Appeal Br. 5–12).
We select independent claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims
stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a claim is patent eligible if it claims a “new
and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”
35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101
to include an implicit exception: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.
208, 216 (2014).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim
laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim
patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217.
The first step in that analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are not
directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, the inquiry
ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements
of the claims are considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’”
to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the
nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo,
Appeal 2020-004578
Application 12/501,036

5
566 U.S. at 79, 78). This is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ — i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. at 217–18 (alteration in original).
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) published
revised guidance on January 7, 2019, for use by USPTO personnel in
evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019 REVISED
PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 57
(Jan. 7, 2019) (the “2019 Revised Guidance”).2 That guidance revised the
USPTO’s examination procedure with respect to the first step of the
Mayo/Alice framework by (1) “[p]roviding groupings of subject matter that
[are] considered an abstract idea”; and (2) clarifying that a claim is not
“directed to” a judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a
practical application of that exception. Id. at 50.
The first step, as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance (i.e.,
Step 2A), is, thus, a two-prong test. In Step 2A, Prong One, we look to
whether the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., one of the following
three groupings of abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts; (2) certain
methods of organizing human activity, e.g., fundamental economic
principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions; and (3) mental
processes. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. If so, we next
determine, in Step 2A, Prong Two, whether the claim as a whole integrates
the recited judicial exception into a practical application, i.e., whether the

2 The MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) incorporates
the revised guidance and subsequent updates at Section 2106 (9th ed.
Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020).
Appeal 2020-004578
Application 12/501,036

6
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful
limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting
effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Id. at 54–55. Only if
the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application do we conclude that the claim is
“directed to” the judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea. Id.
If the claim is determined to be directed to a judicial exception under
revised Step 2A, we next evaluate the additional elements, individually and
in combination, in Step 2B, to determine whether they provide an inventive
concept, i.e., whether the additional elements or combination of elements
amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Only then,
is the claim patent eligible. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The Examiner determined here that the claims recite “storm
commodity forecasting,” i.e., a fundamental economic practice, which is a
method of organizing human activity and, therefore, an abstract idea (Final
Act. 3–8), and that the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical
application (id. at 8–10). The Examiner also determined that the claims do
not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more
than the abstract idea itself (id. at 11).
Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A)
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred in determining that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Appeal
Br. 5–12). The Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry
applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification,
based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject
Appeal 2020-004578
Application 12/501,036

7
matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d
1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a
specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself
qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a
tool. See id. at 1335–36. Here, it is clear from the Specification (including
the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on any
improvement to technology and/or a technical field.
The Specification is titled “STORM COMMODITY FORECAST
SYSTEM AND METHOD,” and describes, in the Background section, that
most traded commodities are influenced in some way by weather, and that
energy is a particularly weather-sensitive commodity that is traded on
national and international markets (Spec. ¶ 3). To support or facilitate the
trading of these weather-dependent commodities, several entities around the
globe, including the National Weather Service, distribute weather forecasts
that are used and interpreted by meteorologists to be applied to commodity
trading (id. ¶¶ 3, 4).
The Specification describes that weather forecasters are able, with
increasingly improved accuracy, to prognosticate a likely storm trajectory
well in advance of the storm’s actual movement (Spec. ¶ 6), but explains,
“[w]hat really affects and moves the market is the forecasted probability of
long-term damage to oil and gas producing facilities, since damage sustained
by an offshore facility may result in a halt in production for weeks or even
months” (id.). “These delays directly affect the supply and demand of the
energy market and, in light of such potential losses, energy markets react by
aggressively buying or selling commodity futures accordingly” (id.).
Appeal 2020-004578
Application 12/501,036

8
Therefore, according to the Specification, what is needed is a system and
method designed to accurately calculate the potential formation of tropical
storms, as well as the potential offshore production loss of oil barrels per day
and billion cubic feet (BCF) of natural gas per day, and also accurately
calculate potential production/output losses to onshore refineries and power
plants based on the forecasted storm path (id. ¶ 7).
The claimed invention is ostensibly intended to satisfy this need by
providing users with a quantitative analysis of offshore and onshore energy
production as it may be impacted by impending tropical storms (Spec. ¶ 9).
Claim 1, thus, recites a method of integrating datasets from different data
sources to generate a commodity forecast for transmission to a user,
comprising: (1) receiving a first dataset, including weather information, from
a first data source communicably coupled to a forecast data server, the
weather information including a forecasted trajectory of a system, i.e.,
receiving a first dataset from a first data source, the first dataset
including weather information, the first data source including a
weather information database stored on a non-transitory
computer-readable medium and communicably coupled to a
forecast data server, wherein the weather information includes a
forecasted trajectory of a system, the weather information
database configured to periodically monitor at least a national
weather service
(step (a)); (2) receiving a second dataset, including commodity production
information, from a second data source, i.e.,
receiving a second dataset from a second data source, the second
dataset including commodity production information including
crude oil and natural gas production for producing facilities and
refineries, the second data source including a commodity
production database stored on the non-transitory computer-
readable medium and communicably coupled to the forecast data
server; the commodity production database configured to
Appeal 2020-004578
Application 12/501,036

9
periodically monitor at least a minerals management service, said
commodity production information further comprising at least
one of oil and gas production numbers, power-generating facility
information, current production or output outages
(step (b)); (3) “transmitting the first dataset and the second dataset to the
forecast data server” (step (c)); (4) processing the first and second datasets to
generate the commodity forecast, i.e.,
processing the first dataset and the second dataset to generate the
commodity forecast, wherein the processing includes:
executing a plurality of algorithms to prioritize each of the
weather information and the commodity production information
in the first dataset and the second dataset, wherein the
prioritization is based on variables including a forecasted wave
height and wind speed; and
generating, by the forecast data server, the commodity
forecast, wherein the commodity forecast indicates possible
short-term outages or susceptible long-term outages for offshore
oil or natural gas facilities lying in the forecasted trajectory of
the system, wherein the generating includes executing, by the
forecast data server, at least one pre-determined algorithm
configured to calculate the commodity forecast from the weather
information and the commodity production information in the
first dataset and the second dataset, the commodity forecast
comprising at least in part a report detailing the underlying
analysis,
wherein the short-term outages are when offshore oil or
natural gas facilities lying in the forecasted trajectory of the
system are forecasted to endure external forces over a force range
according to the weather information and commodity production
information in the first dataset and the second dataset,
wherein the susceptible long-term outages are when
offshore oil or natural gas facilities lying in the forecasted
trajectory of the system are forecasted to endure external forces
exceeding the force range according to the weather information
and commodity production information in the first dataset and
the second dataset
(step (d)); and (5) transmitting the commodity forecast to a user, i.e.,
Appeal 2020-004578
Application 12/501,036

10
transmitting the commodity forecast in real-time to a user via a
communication module coupled to the forecast data server and
presenting the commodity forecast on at least one graphical user
interface viewable by the user through a monitor communicably
coupled to a user interface
(step (e)). We agree with the Examiner that the claim limitations, which
given their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite “storm commodity
forecasting,” i.e., a method of organizing human activity and, therefore, an
abstract idea.
Appellant does not present any substantive challenge to the
Examiner’s determination that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, i.e., storm
commodity forecasting. Instead, Appellant ostensibly maintains that claim 1
is patent eligible because it integrates the alleged abstract idea into a
practical application. Appellant cites hypothetical claim 1 of Example 42 of
the USPTO’s 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas (the
“Eligibility Examples”) as supporting its position (Appeal Br. 6–12).3 Yet,
we can find no parallel between hypothetical claim 1 of Example 42 and
pending claim 1 here at issue.
The USPTO describes in the “Background” section of Example 42
that patients with chronic or undiagnosed illnesses often must visit several
different medical providers for diagnosis and treatment, and that these
physicians may be physically separate from, and unaware of each other.
Eligibility Examples 17. During a visit, each medical provider records
information about the patient’s condition in the provider’s own local patient
records. Id. However, because these records often are stored in a non-

3 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
101_examples_37to42_20190107.pdf
Appeal 2020-004578
Application 12/501,036

11
standard format (i.e., a format based on the particular hardware or software
platform in use in the medical provider’s office), it is difficult for a medical
provider to share updated information about a patient’s condition with other
health care providers. Id. To address this problem, the hypothetical
appellant in Example 42 invented a network-based patient management
method that “collects, converts[,] and consolidates patient information from
various physicians and health-care providers into a standardized format,
stores [the information] in network-based storage devices, and generates
messages notifying health care providers or patients whenever that
information is updated.” Id.
Applying the 2019 Revised Guidance, the Office determines that
hypothetical claim 14 recites a method of organizing human activity and,

4 Claim 1 of Example 42 recites:
A method comprising:
a) storing information in a standardized format about a patient’s
condition in a plurality of network-based non-transitory storage devices
having a collection of medical records stored thereon;
b) providing remote access to users over a network so any one of
the users can update the information about the patient’s condition in the
collection of medical records in real time through a graphical user
interface, wherein the one of the users provides the updated information
in a non-standardized format dependent on the hardware and software
platform used by the one of the users;
c) converting, by a content server, the non-standardized updated
information into the standardized format,
d) storing the standardized updated information about the
patient’s condition in the collection of medical records in the
standardized format;
e) automatically generating a message containing the updated
information about the patient’s condition by the content server
whenever updated information has been stored; and
Appeal 2020-004578
Application 12/501,036

12
therefore, an abstract idea, i.e., that “[t]he claimed invention is a method that
allows for users to access patients’ medical records and receive updated
patient information in real time from other users, which is a method of
managing interactions between people.” Id. at 18. However, the Office
determines that claim 1 is nonetheless patent eligible because it integrates
the recited abstract idea into a practical application, i.e.,
[t]he claim recites a combination of additional elements
including storing information, providing remote access over a
network, converting updated information that was input by a user
in a non-standardized form to a standardized format,
automatically generating a message whenever updated
information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the
users. . . . Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific
improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to
share information in real time in a standardized format
regardless of the format in which the information was input by
the user.
Id. at 18–19 (emphasis added).
Appellant argues here that, “like claim 1 of Example 42, the
Specification describes receiving data in a first format (e.g., weather data in
a forecast format) and . . . converting that data into a standardized format
(e.g., a weather product) that is suitable for use by traders” (Appeal Br. 8
(citing Spec. ¶¶ 20, 22, 26)). Appellant also maintains that “like the solution
provided by the claimed technology in Example 42’s claim 1, which
‘allow[ed] remote users to share information in real time’ and that was

f) transmitting the message to all of the users over the computer
network in real time, so that each user has immediate access to up-to-
date patient information.
Eligibility Examples 18.
Appeal 2020-004578
Application 12/501,036

13
described as giving users (e.g., doctors) ‘immediate notice and access to
changes [to the stored information] so they can readily adapt their own
medical diagnostic and treatment strateg[ies],’” the solution disclosed by the
Specification enables “real-time detection of updates to weather data and
converts detected changes to the weather data into the weather product[ ]
that is shared with traders to enable the traders to rapidly make decisions
(e.g., initiate trading decisions before market trends resulting from the
weather forecast move markets)” (id. (citing Spec. ¶¶ 20, 22–26, 30, 43)).
Further, pointing to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Specification, Appellant
argues that claim 1 improves on conventional systems that “do not have
mechanisms to quantify the impact that a weather system will have on
‘potential off shore production loss of oil barrels . . . and natural gas per day
based on the forecasted storm path’” by obtaining information from different
data sources and integrating the information into a commodity forecast that
“allows a user to accurately, efficiently, and quickly (e.g., in real-time or
near real-time) determine possible short-term outages or susceptible long-
term outages for offshore oil or natural gas facilities lying in the forecasted
trajectory of the system” (Appeal Br. 10–11). And Appellant asserts that
“the generating and transmitting features represent additional elements that
provide a practical integration of the asserted abstract idea into a practical
application . . . , as is evidenced by the similarities between the additional
elements of claim 1 at issue in this appeal and those identified in
Example 42’s claim 1 according the Office’s own analysis” (id. at 11).
The 2019 Revised Guidance references MPEP, Ninth Edition
(rev. Jan 2018) (available at https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/
E9_R-08.2017.) § 2106.05(a)–(c) and (e) in non-exhaustively listing
Appeal 2020-004578
Application 12/501,036

14
considerations indicative that an additional element or combination of
elements may have integrated the recited judicial exception into a practical
application. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. In particular, the
Guidance describes that an additional element may have integrated the
judicial exception into a practical application if the additional element
(1) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an
improvement to other technology or technical field; (2) applies or uses the
judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease
or medical condition; (3) implements the judicial exception with, or uses the
judicial exception with, a particular machine or manufacture integral to the
claim; (4) effects a transformation or reduction of an article to a different
state or thing; or applies; or (5) applies or uses the judicial exception in some
other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial
exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a
whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Id. At the same time, the Guidance makes clear that merely including
instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a
computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra-
solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use
of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field
are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. Id.
Appellant maintains that, like hypothetical claim 1 of Example 42,
claim 1 here at issue integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical
application. Yet, the difficulty with Appellant’s arguments is that
hypothetical claim 1 of Example 42 was deemed patent eligible because it
Appeal 2020-004578
Application 12/501,036

15
provided a specific improvement over prior systems by allowing remote
users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of
the format in which the information was originally input (see Eligibility
Examples 18–19). Hypothetical claim 1, thus, addressed technological
difficulties related to incompatible computer formats, disparate geographic
locations, and the untimely sharing of information (see id. at 17). We are
not persuaded that a comparable improvement is present here.
Appellant argues that
the additional elements recited in claim 1 [i.e., the generating and
transmitting steps] . . . represent a technological improvement to
systems used to convert weather and commodity production data
into a commodity forecast that may be distributed to users in real-
time and utilized to make rapid and informed decisions, which is
a practical integration of the asserted abstract idea of “storm
commodity forecasting”
(Appeal Br. 12). But, even assuming for the sake of argument that the
generating step can be characterized properly as an “additional element,” as
opposed to part of the abstract idea itself, we are not persuaded that
processing weather and commodity production information to determine the
potential short-term or long-term effects that a forecasted storm will have on
commodities is a technological improvement as opposed to an improvement
to the abstract idea of storm commodity forecasting, which is not enough for
patent eligibility.5 See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161,
1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[P]atent law does not protect such claims [i.e.,
claims to an asserted advance in the realm of abstract ideas], without more,

5 The “transmitting” step is, at best, extra-solution activity, which, as
described above, the 2019 Revised Guidance makes clear is not sufficient to
integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Appeal 2020-004578
Application 12/501,036

16
no matter how groundbreaking the advance.”). That is particularly true,
where, as here, there is no indication that the operations recited in claim 1
require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer
components, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the
claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer
components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings,
LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter
Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations
does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”).
We conclude, for the reasons outlined above, that claim 1 recites a
method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea, i.e., “a
forecast data server”; “graphical user interface”; and “a monitor,” are no
more than generic computer components used as tools to perform the recited
abstract idea. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223–24 (“[W]holly generic
computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’
that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting
effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77)). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is
directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that
claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the
2019 Revised Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework,
whether claim 1 includes additional elements or a combination of elements
Appeal 2020-004578
Application 12/501,036

17
that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or
combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial
exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in
the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply
appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known
to the industry to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not include additional
elements or a combination of elements that provides an inventive concept
(Final Act. 10). And Appellant presents no arguments to the contrary, i.e.,
that claim 1 is patent eligible under Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Guidance.
We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 4–6, 10–14, 16,
18–20, 24, and 26, which fall with claim 1.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–6,
10–14, 16,
18–20, 24,
26
101 Eligibility 1, 4–6,
10–14, 16,
18–20, 24,
26

Appeal 2020-004578
Application 12/501,036

18
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