Yossef Brandes et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 10, 2020

14010394 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/010,394 08/26/2013 Yossef BRANDES 107945.000046 3918
145584 7590 04/10/2020
Prince Lobel Tye LLP
One International Place
Suite 3700
Boston, MA 02110
EXAMINER
HOLLY, JOHN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/10/2020 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):
docketing@princelobel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YOSSEF BRANDES and MARIA MEI
____________

Appeal 2018-008295
Application 14/010,394
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Yossef Brandes and Maria Mei (Appellant2) seeks review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of a non–final rejection of claims 1–26, the only claims

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed February 26, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed August
22, 2018), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 22, 2018) and
Non-Final Office (?) Action (“Non-Final Act.,” mailed March 24, 2017).
Appeal 2018-008295
Application 14/010,394

2

pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way of providing one or more widgets that
can display real-time graphical representations of analytics including real-
time market information and intra-day analysis of trade executions.
Specification para. 2.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (some paragraphing added).
1. A method of displaying real time analytics to a user of a
securities trading system on a display device, the method
comprising:
(a) receiving,
at a computer server, from said securities trading
system
electronic communications of one or more records
corresponding to a list of one or more securities
and
a request to display an analytic for said one or more
securities,
said analytic selected from a predetermined set of
one or more analytics;
(b) receiving,
at said computer server, from said one or more
data sources via the digital communication
network,

2 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 ITG
Software Solutions, Inc. (Appeal Br. 2).

Appeal 2018-008295
Application 14/010,394

3

electronic communications of real-time market data for
said one or more securities;
(c) obtaining
by said computer server,
said requested analytic based on said one or more records
and said real-time market data,
said requested analytic including at least one of an
analysis and a recommendation associated with
said one or more securities;
(d) sending
by said computer server
to a widget engine executing on a computer
processor associated with said display device,
information causing said widget engine to display
in a pre-determined display area on said
display device
a graphical representation of said requested
analytic;
(e) detecting,
by said server,
an update of at least one of said records and said market
data;
and
Appeal 2018-008295
Application 14/010,394

4

(f) sending
by said computer server to said widget engine,
updated information causing said widget engine to
display in said pre-determined display area an updated
graphical representation of said requested analytic based
on said updated data.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Nason US 6,966,036 B2 Nov. 15, 2005
Duka US 2003/0120535 A1 June 26, 2003
Rosenthal US 2006/0010066 A1 Jan. 12, 2006
Claims 1–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 1–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Rosenthal, Nason, and Duka.
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.
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 Claim Construction
01. The disclosure contains no lexicographic definition of
“analytics.”
Appeal 2018-008295
Application 14/010,394

5

02. The ordinary meaning of “analytics” is the method of logical
analysis3 or the branch of logic dealing with analysis.4
03. The Specification defines “widget” as a small applications (i.e.,
“applets”) that give access to information and frequently used
functions. Spec. para. 5.
04. The Specification defines “widget engine” as a software service
available to users for running and displaying widgets in a display
area. Spec. para. 5.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Rosenthal
05. Rosenthal is directed to providing electronic information via a
graphical user interface over a computer network, and more
specifically, providing a graphical user interface for electronic
trading. Rosenthal para. 2.
06. Rosenthal describes electronic trading information being
obtained on an application on a target device from one or more
electronic trading exchanges. The trading electronic information
is processed. Electronic trading information is displayed on a
multi-windowed graphical user interface (GUI) where it is used to
automatically execute automatic trades. This may improve
multiple types of electronic information that can be selectively
displayed on a graphical user interface by a user and used to

3 Merriam-Webster Dictionary https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/analytics Last accessed March 17, 2020.
4 American Heritage Dictionary
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=analytics Last accessed
March 17, 2020.
Appeal 2018-008295
Application 14/010,394

6

automatically execute plural different pre-determined types of
electronic trading strategies. Rosenthal para. 17.
Nason
07. Nason is directed to adding a user interface border beyond the
standard screen display area. Nason 1:59–60.
08. Nason describes using API’s (application programming
interfaces) capable of direct driver and/or hardware manipulation,
such as Microsoft's DirectX, in place of the CRT Controller
registers and/or direct access to the display buffer as a way to
present screen graphics at a specific area. Nason 8:26–30.
Duka
09. Duka is directed to processing, analyzing and displaying
information, generally, and, more particularly to processing,
analyzing and displaying market information to assist traders and
investors in analyzing and forecasting the movement of stock
market values based on recorded historical information. Duka
para. 2.
10. Duka describes a method and a set of tools to assist a technical
analyst, trader or investor in analyzing and forecasting the
movement of market values in a more structured and systematic
manner than conventional techniques. Duka para. 7.
11. Duka describes a user selecting the measurement increment r
himself, seek an automatic recommendation on the optimal
measurement increment from the data processing system, or select
the measurement increment while being guided by a
recommendation from the system. The optimal values of rare
Appeal 2018-008295
Application 14/010,394

7

generally greater than or equal to the average amplitude of the
difference between the maximum and minimum quotes within a
standard time period. In one example, the system may be
configured to add all average amplitudes relating to the selected
data with which the user is working, divide the resulting answer
by the number of added terms, and communicate the calculated
average difference amplitude to the user to assist in optimizing the
choice of r, in particular to assign a value greater than the average
amplitude. Once the measurement increment r is determined, the
transformation of the real curve to a trajectory in Increment-
Change Space is generally affected as previously described herein.
The trajectory may be referred to as the “main trajectory.” The
real curve may also be transformed into a beam of two or more
trajectories and, if desired, the beam-average curve thereof may be
determined, which may be superposed on the main trajectory,
and/or analyzed separately. There are many ways of presenting
the aforesaid transformation in Increment-Change Space, and of
processing the main trajectory or the trajectories of a beam to
provide useful information for analyzing market trends. Duka
para. 212.
ANALYSIS
We begin with claim construction. We first construe the limitation
“analytics.” There is no lexicographic definition, but the ordinary meaning
is the method of logical analysis or the branch of logic dealing with analysis.
We therefore construe analytics as a method of logical analysis. We
Appeal 2018-008295
Application 14/010,394

8

construe the adjective “analytic” according to its ordinary meaning of
pertaining to analysis.
We construe “widget” according to the Specification as a small
software application that is designed to provide information or functions. In
other words, a widget is a small software program. We construe a widget
engine according to the Specification as a service (software process) for
running such widget programs. In other words a widget engine is a
conventional example of generic distributed processing running a small
program.
Claims 1–26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial
exception without significantly more
STEP 15
Claim 1, 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-

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”).
Appeal 2018-008295
Application 14/010,394

9

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. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations
omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the
claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite
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. at
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 1 recites receiving request and market data, obtaining analytic data,
sending information for display, detecting a data change, and again sending
data for display. Obtaining data is another form of receiving data. Detecting
changes in data is rudimentary data analysis. Thus, claim 1 recites
Appeal 2018-008295
Application 14/010,394

10

receiving, transmitting, and analyzing 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.
From this we see that claim 1 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 1 recites the concept of
analyzing financial securities for trading. Specifically, claim 1 recites
operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to display
refreshed financial security analysis upon request. The advice to display
refreshed financial security analysis for security trading upon request
involves securities trading, which is an economic act, and an analysis and a

6 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
7 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; 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); 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; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2018-008295
Application 14/010,394

11

recommendation associated with said one or more securities, which is an act
ordinarily performed in the stream of financial trading commerce. For
example, claim 1 recites “securities trading,” which is an activity that would
take place whenever one is trading securities. Similarly, claim 1 recites “an
analysis and a recommendation associated with said one or more securities,”
which is also characteristic of financial trading.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to the operations
recited in the steps. Non-Final Act. 4.
The preamble to claim 1 recites that it is a method of displaying real
time analytics to a user. The steps in claim 1 result in displaying refreshed
financial security analysis upon request absent any technological mechanism
other than a conventional computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations a, b, and c recite receiving
data. Limitations d, e, and f recite generic and conventional transmitting,
and analyzing of financial analysis data, which advise one to apply generic
functions to get to these results. The limitations thus recite advice for
displaying refreshed financial security analysis upon request. To advocate
displaying refreshed financial security analysis upon request is conceptual
advice for results desired and not technological operations.
The Specification at paragraph 2 describes the invention as relating to
providing one or more widgets that can display real-time graphical
representations of analytics including real-time market information and
intra-day analysis of trade executions. Using widgets and displaying real-
time data are conventional computer practices to the point of being
conceptual ideas for doing so devoid of technological implementation
details. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1 recites analyzing
Appeal 2018-008295
Application 14/010,394

12

financial securities for trading. This is consistent with the Examiner’s
determination.
This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a
certain method of organizing human activity because financial trading is a
commercial interaction. The concept of analyzing financial securities for
trading by displaying refreshed financial security analysis upon request is
one idea for performing due diligence in such trading. The steps recited in
claim 1 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. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG
LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (display to help users process
information more quickly); Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.,
838 F.3d 1266, 1271 (2016) (customizing user interface and tailoring
content).
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 1 recites
analyzing financial securities for trading by displaying refreshed financial
security analysis upon request, 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 1 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

9 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2018-008295
Application 14/010,394

13

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,
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 a–c are pure data gathering steps.
Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Steps d and f
are insignificant post solution activity, such as storing, transmitting, or
displaying the results. Step e recites generic computer processing expressed
in terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so present 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 1 simply recites the concept of
analyzing financial securities for trading by displaying refreshed financial
security analysis upon request 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 2018-008295
Application 14/010,394

14

Claim 1 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 31 pages of specification do not bulge
with disclosure, but only spell out different generic equipment10 and
parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps
such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of analyzing
financial securities for trading by displaying refreshed financial security
analysis upon request under different scenarios. They do not describe any
particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead,
claim 1 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to
apply analyzing financial securities for trading by displaying refreshed
financial security analysis upon request 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 general purpose computers, microprocessors,
or the like. Spec. para. 2.
Appeal 2018-008295
Application 14/010,394

15

the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the exception.
We conclude that claim 1 is directed to achieving the result of
analyzing financial securities for trading by advising one to display
refreshed financial security analysis upon request, 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 1 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 “implemen [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
process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the [abstract idea] itself.”
Appeal 2018-008295
Application 14/010,394

16

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.” They do not. Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for receiving, transmitting, and analyzing data amounts to
electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a
computer. The limitations of “to a widget engine executing on a computer
processor associated with said display device” and “causing said widget
engine to display” are not steps, but a recitation of what is to happen after
the step of sending data, outside the scope of the process recited, viz. an
intention, which is aspirational rather than functional. In any event a widget
engine is a generic software process running under conventional distributed
processing mode for a small computer program, and, so, equally
conventional. 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). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing
Patent Litig., 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
Appeal 2018-008295
Application 14/010,394

17

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).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-transmission-
analysis 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), 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), 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 1 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 1 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
Appeal 2018-008295
Application 14/010,394

18

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.
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 analyzing financial securities for trading by advising one
to display refreshed financial security analysis upon request, 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 3–6 and Answer 3–14
and reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the claims
embody a particular computer architecture which improves both the
interface and the technology of electronic trading.” Reply Br. 2. The claims
do not recite any computer architecture. Instead they only recite receiving,
sending, and analyzing data. To the extent Appellant relies on the use of
Appeal 2018-008295
Application 14/010,394

19

analytics and widgets for such architecture, as we construe supra, these are
intangible logical expressions and software for which no particular
technological details are recited. To the extent Appellant relies on reciting
the use of a server, such use is no more than the conceptual idea of
distributed processing, which has been a conventional practice for dividing
processing for decades. No technological implementation details for how
the server otherwise improves performance is recited.
Appellant’s argument regarding the ability to integrate widgets into a
system (Reply Br. 3) is no more than a paean to programming style rather
than recited structure. At bottom, a widget is just a small program that may
rely on pre-existing libraries for coding brevity. This is no more than a
coding style. Appellant’s arguments as to the advantages of widgets are
unpersuasive because widgets per se were conventional and no technological
implementation details for providing the argued advantages are recited. The
advantages were inherent in conventional widgets. The invention as
contended is no more than the conceptual idea of using widgets as a matter
of programming style. “The abstract idea itself cannot supply the inventive
concept, ‘no matter how groundbreaking the advance.’” Trading Techs.
Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the use of a
widget engine improves performance. Reply Br. 3–4. This is attorney
argument without supporting evidence. The coding engine is just more
software in a conventional distributed processing context. Again, no
technological implementation details of the engine are recited. The
limitation of a widget engine is therefore no more than recitation of the
conceptual idea of conventional distributed processing.
Appeal 2018-008295
Application 14/010,394

20

Claims 1–26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Rosenthal, Nason, and Duka
We adopt the Examiner’s analysis and determinations from Non-Final
Action 7–14 and Answer 14–17 and reach similar legal conclusions. In
particular, we agree with the Examiner that Rosenthal describes the
limitation of displaying a graphical representation of the analysis. Ans. 15–
16; FF 06. Neither claims nor Specification define or narrow the scope and
meaning of “graphical representation,” and this is otherwise a very broad
term. Rosenthal Figures 5–14 display windows in a graphical user interface
with what one of ordinary skill would refer to as graphical representations of
numeric data analysis collections. The non-numeric parts of the windows
that organize the analysis are within the scope of graphical representations.
Appellant does not rebut the Examiner’s analysis and determinations from
the Answer in the Reply Brief.
Appeal 2018-008295
Application 14/010,394

21

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
The rejection of claims 1–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Rosenthal, Nason, and Duka is proper.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1–26 is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. §  Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–26 101 Eligibility 1–26
1–26 103(a) Rosenthal, Nason,
Duka
1–26
Overall
Outcome
1–26

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED