Woodard, Bridget et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 21, 2019

12898204 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 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.
12/898,204 10/05/2010 Bridget Woodard 088325-0780979
(101700US)
3419
51206 7590 10/21/2019
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/Oracle
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
WEISENFELD, ARYAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/21/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
oraclepatentmail@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRIDGET WOODARD,
WEISHIN YIN,
JENNY KWAN,
HUI DONG,
RACHEL IP,
and EARNEST IVIE
____________

Appeal 2017-0118341
Application 12/898,204
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 An oral hearing was held October 3, 2019.
Appeal 2017–011834
Application 12/898,204

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Bridget Woodard, Weishin Yin, Jenny Kwan, Hui Dong, Rachel Ip,
and Earnest Ivie (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a non–
final rejection of claims 22–41, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal.3 We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented an eProcurement system with the ability to
communicate a changed requirement. Spec. para. 17.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 22, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
22. A method for processing data change requests in
accordance with templates to generate updated versions of
requisition orders, the method comprising:
[1] transmitting, from a computing system and to a first user
device associated with a customer, a first interface that:
identifies each of a plurality of fields, a first field of the
plurality of fields indicating an item requested by a
requisition order;
and

2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed
May 31, 2017 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief filed September 26, 2017
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 1, 2017 (“Ans.”); and
the Non-Final Action mailed January 25, 2017 (“Non-Final Act.”).
3 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Oracle
International Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.

Appeal 2017–011834
Application 12/898,204

3

includes, for each field of at least some the plurality of
fields, an input component configured to receive input to
indicate whether re-approval is required for a value of the
field to be changed;
[2] receiving, via the first interface, a first communication from
the first user device that indicates
that re-approval is required for a value of a second field
of the plurality of fields to be changed;
[3] generating, at the computing system and based on the first
communication,
a template for a customer that indicates that re-approval
is required for a value of the second field to be changed;
[4] accessing requisition data for a particular requisition order
that identifies,
for each field of the plurality of fields,
a value for the field,
the value having been identified in a previous
communication;
[5] accessing status data for the particular requisition order that
indicates a status of sourcing associated with a line item;
[6] determining,
based on the status data and the template,
that one or more fields of the plurality of fields are
eligible for processing of value changes,
the one or more fields including the second field;
[7] facilitating a presentation,
via a second user interface,
that includes the requisition data and one or more
indications that provision of a changed value for any of
the one or more fields is to be processed to update or
conditionally update the particular requisition order;
[8] receiving, via the second user interface, one or more second
communications that identify:
Appeal 2017–011834
Application 12/898,204

4

a first proposed changed value for the second field,
wherein effecting the first proposed changed value
for the second field requires re-approval;
and
a second changed value for a third field of the plurality of
fields,
wherein effecting the second changed value for the
third field does not require re-approval;
[9] generating,
at the computing system and based on the one or
more second communications and the template,
a change-request presentation
that identifies the particular requisition order, the
first proposed changed value and the second field
but does not identify the second changed value;
[10] transmitting, via a third user interface, the change-request
presentation to a second user device;
[11] receiving, via the third user interface, a third
communication that includes a response to the first proposed
changed value;
and
[12] generating, by the computing system, an updated version
of the requisition order
that includes the second changed value for the third field,
wherein a value for the second field in the
requisition order depends on the response.

Appeal 2017–011834
Application 12/898,204

5

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:

Name Reference Date
Kumomura US 5,850,219 Dec. 15, 1998
Baumann US 7,082,408 B1 July 25, 2006
King US 2002/0152133 A1 Oct. 17, 2002
Holland & Knight, The Often Overlooked Attorney Review Clause,
Attorney Advertising Article, October 2003 (hereinafter “Holland
Knight”).

Claims 22–41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 22–29 and 32–39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over King, Holland Knight, and Kumomura.
Claims 30, 31, 40, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over King, Holland Knight, Kumomura, and Baumann.4
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art describes
the claim limitations.

4 A rejection of claims 23 and 33 and all dependent claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) (Non-Final Act. 8), was withdrawn. Ans. 2–3.
Appeal 2017–011834
Application 12/898,204

6

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
King
01. King is directed to providing an on-line marketplace and, more
particularly, to on-line negotiation, contract formation and/or
querying into price and availability of desired goods. King para.
2.
02. King describes creating on-line marketplaces. The
marketplace permits a buyer to issue a requisition check inquiring
into at least one of the price and availability of goods. The
marketplace receives this requisition check and forwards it to the
sellers or suppliers of the goods. Each supplier then issues a
response indicating the price and/or availability of the goods.
Based on this requisition check, the buyer then formulates an
order which is passed through the marketplace to the suppliers.
The suppliers can accept the order or issue a counterproposal. The
marketplace tracks the requisition checks, responses to the
requisition checks, submitted orders, and responses to orders.
King para. 8.

Holland Knight
03. Holland Knight is directed to describing the use of an attorney
review clause in real estate contracts. Holland Knight 1.

Appeal 2017–011834
Application 12/898,204

7

Kumomura
04. Kumomura is directed to electronic approval that can determine
in a simple manner an electronic mail to be approved from among
those received, perform electronic approval on selected electronic
mail to be approved in an efficient manner, and send the approved
electronic mail to a specified destination in an efficient manner.
Kumomura 1:6–15.
ANALYSIS
Initially we construe certain claim limitations. We begin by
construing “transmitting . . . a first interface” in claim 22, limitation 1. The
Specification does not describe this. All descriptions of interfaces in the
Specification refer to screen displays, so it is initially unclear how a screen
display, being an intangible appearance upon a display screen, could be
transmitted. Appellant cites Specification paragraphs 19, 30, and 32 and
Figure 3A as support. Appeal Br. 4. Paragraph 19 does not describe an
interface. Paragraph 30 describes the visual appearance of an interface, but
not its transmission. Paragraph 32 describes fields of an interface, but not its
transmission. Figure 3A portrays the visual appearance of an interface, but
not its transmission. There appears to be no written description support for
transmitting the interface. We will presume what is meant is transmitting
data that is used to generate an interface. As such, this limitation is
conventional data transmission. Similar analysis also pertains to limitation
10 of transmitting a presentation, taken to mean transmitting data used to
generate a presentation.

Appeal 2017–011834
Application 12/898,204

8

Claims 22–41 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial
exception without significantly more

STEP 15
Claim 22, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.

STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat
else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question,[]
consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as
an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional
elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-
eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis as 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.”

Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citing
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012))
(citations omitted). To perform this test, we must first determine what the
claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite

5 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.”).
Appeal 2017–011834
Application 12/898,204

9

one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining
whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “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.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54.
If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally determining
whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional
elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited
judicial exception.

STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 22 recites transmitting interface data, receiving communication data,
generating template data, accessing requisition and status data, determining
eligibility data, facilitating data presentation, receiving more communication
data, generating presentation data, transmitting presentation data, receiving
yet more communication data, and updating requisition data. Accessing data
is data reception. Determining eligibility is rudimentary criteria analysis.
Facilitating presentation is data display. Thus, claim 22 recites transmitting,
receiving, generating, analyzing, displaying, and updating data. None of the
limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps,
but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means.
Appeal 2017–011834
Application 12/898,204

10

From this we see that claim 22 does not recite the judicial exceptions
of either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include: (1) mathematical concepts;6 (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity;7 and (3) mental processes.8 Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial
or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 22 recites the concept of
purchasing goods and services. Specifically, claim 22 recites operations that
would ordinarily take place in advising one to update a requisition for goods
or services after obtaining necessary approvals. The advice to update a
requisition for goods or services after obtaining necessary approvals
involves updating a requisition order, which is an economic act, and
identifying goods or services to be purchased, which is an act ordinarily
performed in the stream of commerce. For example, claim 22 recites
“generating . . . an updated version of the requisition order,” which is an

6 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); see also Bilski
v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v.
Radio Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); and SAP America, Inc. v.
InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
7 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20;
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart
Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed.
Cir. 2017); and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–
61 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
8 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail
Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2017–011834
Application 12/898,204

11

activity that would take place whenever one is altering a prospective
purchase. Similarly, claim 1 recites “identifies each of a plurality of fields, a
first field of the plurality of fields indicating an item requested by a
requisition order,” which is also characteristic of purchasing goods or
services.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to updating
requisition orders. Non-Final Act. 4.
The preamble to claim 22 recites that it is a method for processing
data change requests in accordance with templates to generate updated
versions of requisition orders. The steps in claim 22 result in updating
requisition orders absent any technological mechanism other than a
conventional computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 2, 4, 5, 8, and 11 recite
receiving data. Limitations 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 recite generic and
conventional transmitting, generating, analyzing, displaying, and updating of
requisition data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these
results. The limitations thus recite advice for updating a requisition for
goods or services after obtaining necessary approvals. To advocate updating
a requisition for goods or services after obtaining necessary approvals is
conceptual advice for results desired and not technological operations.
The Specification at paragraph 17 describes the invention as relating
to an eProcurement system with the ability to communicate a changed
requirement. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 22 is directed
to purchasing goods and services. This is consistent with the Examiner’s
determination.
Appeal 2017–011834
Application 12/898,204

12

This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a
certain method of organizing human activity because purchasing goods and
services are commercial transactions. The concept of purchasing goods and
services by updating a requisition for goods or services after obtaining
necessary approvals is one idea for recording changes to purchases. The
steps recited in claim 22 are part of how this might conceptually be
premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (tracking and
storing information relating to a user’s purchases).
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 22 is directed
to purchasing goods and services by updating a requisition for goods or
services after obtaining necessary approvals, which is a commercial and
legal interaction, one of certain methods of organizing human activity
identified in the Revised Guidance, and thus, an abstract idea.

STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 22 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application.9
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At
some level, “all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon,

9 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.at
175).
Appeal 2017–011834
Application 12/898,204

13

or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.”
Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply
because it involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of
such concepts [“]to a new and useful end,[”] we have said,
remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying
the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that
claim the [“]buildin[g] block[s][”] of human ingenuity and
those that integrate the building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Steps 2, 4, 5, 8, and 11 are pure data
gathering steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter
this. Steps 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, and 12 recite basic conventional data operations
such as transmitting, generating, updating, displaying and storing data. Step
6 recites generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired
by any and all possible means and so presents no more than conceptual
advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted
and the results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such
a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those
results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 22 simply recites the concept of
purchasing goods and services by updating a requisition for goods or
services after obtaining necessary approvals as performed by a generic
computer. This is no more than conceptual advice on the parameters for this
concept and the generic computer processes necessary to process those
parameters, and do not recite any particular implementation.
Appeal 2017–011834
Application 12/898,204

14

Claim 22 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The 23+ pages of specification only spell out
different generic equipment and parameters that might be applied using this
concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail
based on the concept of purchasing goods and services by updating a
requisition for goods or services after obtaining necessary approvals under
different scenarios.10 They do not describe any particular improvement in
the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim 22 at issue amounts to
nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply purchasing goods and
services by updating a requisition for goods or services after obtaining
necessary approvals using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our
precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.
None of the limitations reflect an improvement in the functioning of a
computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies
or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for
a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses
a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture
that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a
particular article to a different state or thing, or 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

10 The Specification describes personal computers and/or laptop computers.
For client devices and general purpose computers for servers. Spec. paras.
69–70.
Appeal 2017–011834
Application 12/898,204

15

the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the exception.
We conclude that claim 22 is directed to achieving the result of
purchasing goods and services by advising one to update a requisition for
goods or services after obtaining necessary approvals, as distinguished from
a technological improvement for achieving or applying that result. This
amounts to commercial or legal interactions, which fall within certain
methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The
claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.

STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 22 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is
not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea ;[“]to a particular technological environment.[”]
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract
idea “on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption
concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the
ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of “additional
feature[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the
Appeal 2017–011834
Application 12/898,204

16

process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea[] on a generic
computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for transmitting, receiving, generating, analyzing, displaying, and
updating data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the
most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are
generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only
for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing
Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible
narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’[]
those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without
special programming.”). None of these activities is used in some
unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result.
Appellant does not contend they invented any of these activities. In short,
each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic
computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even if a process of
collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a
particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis
other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161,
1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appeal 2017–011834
Application 12/898,204

17

Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 22 adds nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data transmission-reception-
generation-analysis-display-update is equally generic and conventional. See
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing
access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction); see also Inventor
Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display,
and transmission); and Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of
processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps
is therefore ordinary and conventional.
We conclude that claim 22 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.

REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 22 is representative. The remaining method claims merely
describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical
application of that concept.
As to the structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic
computer components configured to implement the same idea.
Appeal 2017–011834
Application 12/898,204

18

This Court has long “warn[ed] . . . against” interpreting § 101
“in ways that make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the
draftsman’s art.’”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any
particular machine.

LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and
legal interaction of purchasing goods and services by advising one to update
a requisition for goods or services after obtaining necessary approvals,
without significantly more.

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Non-Final Action 3–7 and Answer 3–15
and reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the “independent
claims set forth a specific mechanism via which requested value changes are
differentially processed for various fields in accordance with a particular
template.” Reply Br. 3. The mechanism is specific only in the sense it is
specified using words. Changing values based on criteria to differentiate
circumstance is conventional data processing. Data bases conventionally
Appeal 2017–011834
Application 12/898,204

19

and routinely rely on templates. A template is just another text document.
No technological implementation details are recited.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that “the change-
request presentation selectively [approves] a changed value for a field
requiring re-approval but not another changed value for another field not
requiring re-approval. Thus, efficiency of this communication is improved,
and data access of an approving entity can also be improved.” Reply Br. 3–
4. This improves the information, but not the computer technology. “The
claims are focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps
them process information more quickly, not on improving computers or
technology.” Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384
(Fed. Cir. 2019).
Appellant cites to Trading Technologies International, Inc. v.
CQG, Inc., 875 Fed.Appx. 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Reply Br. 4. First,
this case is non-precedential and two related precedential cases with user
interfaces had the claims held ineligible. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG
LLC, 921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019) and Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG
Inc., 875 Fed.Appx. 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Second, the claims do not
recite and the Specification does not describe structure associated with the
interface, only data content. In Trading Technologies, in response to a
similar argument that the claims “provide a particular graphical user
interface that improves usability, visualization, and efficiency,” the Court
determined that “[t]he claims are focused on providing information to
traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly, not on
improving computers or technology. . . . The “tool for presentation” here . . .
is simply a generic computer.” Trading Techs., 921 F.3d at 1384–85
Appeal 2017–011834
Application 12/898,204

20

(citations omitted). Similarly here the claims are not focused on an
interface, but on providing information to users in a way that helps them
process information more quickly, not on improving computers or
technology and the tool for presentation is a generic computer.

Claims 22–29 and 32–39 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over King, Holland Knight, and Kumomura

We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that “Holland Knight
relates to real estate contracts and does not disclose transmission of a
change-request presentation.” Reply. Br. 5.

Claims 30, 31, 40, and 41 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over King, Holland Knight, Kumomura, and Baumann

These claims depend from the claims in the prior rejection.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 22–41 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
The rejection of claims 22–29 and 32–39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over King, Holland Knight, and Kumomura is improper.
The rejection of claims 30, 31, 40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over King, Holland Knight, Kumomura, and Baumann is
improper.
Appeal 2017–011834
Application 12/898,204

21

CONCLUSION

The rejection of claims 22–41 is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis  Affirmed Reversed
22–41 101 Eligibility 22–41
22–29. 32–39 103 King, Holland Knight,
Kumomura
22–29. 32–39
30, 31, 40, 41 103 King, Holland Knight,
Kumomura, Baumann
30, 31, 40, 41
Overall
Outcome
22–41

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED