ADP, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2021

2021000888 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2021)

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.
14/795,243 07/09/2015 Matthew Paul Herman ES2015032-2 8516
126105 7590 06/28/2021
Duke W. Yee
Yee & Associates, P.C.
P.O. BOX 6669
MCKINNEY, TX 75071
EXAMINER
GARCIA-GUERRA, DARLENE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2021 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
______________

Ex parte MATTHEW PAUL HERMAN,
OMAR SCOTT, and HADAR YACOBOVITZ
______________

Appeal 2021-000888
Application 14/795,243
Technology Center 3600
______________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, JAMES P. CALVE, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4–15, 17–27, and 29–37, which are all
of the pending claims.2 Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Automatic Data Processing, Inc. as the real party in interest. See
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 3, 16, and 28 are cancelled. See Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2021-000888
Application 14/795,243

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 14, and 26 are independent. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for managing communications channels for a
communications system, comprising:
monitoring, by a computer system, a use of a plurality of
communications channels by a group of people, wherein each
communications channel in the plurality of communications
channels comprises a hardware system in the communications
system;
displaying, by the computer system, the use of the
plurality of communications channels by the group of people on
a radar chart in a graphical user interface in a display system,
wherein the radar chart has a plurality of axes extending from a
common origin in which each of the plurality of axes
corresponds to only one of the plurality of communications
channels and the use of each communications channel in the
plurality of communications channels is indicated on an axis in
the plurality of axes that corresponds to the communication
channel;
identifying, by the computer system, a group of potential
changes to the communications channels in the communications
system based on a policy applied to the use monitored for in the
communications channels;
displaying, by the computer system, the group of
potential changes to the communications channels along with
the radar chart in the graphical user interface;
receiving user input from an operator through the
graphical user interface to implement one of the group of
potential changes to the communications channels; and
changing the communications channels to implement the
one of the group of potential changes to the communications
channels in response to receiving the user input, wherein
changing the communications channels is selected from the
group of changes consisting of: changing allocations of
resources for the communications channels, adding a new
communications channel to the plurality of communications
channels, and removing one of the plurality of communications
channels.
Appeal 2021-000888
Application 14/795,243

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4–15, 17–27, and 29–37 are rejected as directed to a
judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101 without significantly more.
Claims 1, 2, 4–15, 17–27, and 29–37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Srulowitz,3 Breedvelt-Schouten,4 Grisso,5 Ikeda,6
and Shaffer.7
ANALYSIS
Eligibility of Claims 1, 2, 4–15, 17–27, and 29–37
Appellant argues the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 7–14. We select
claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
The Examiner determines that claim 1 recites certain methods of
organizing human activity by managing relationships, transactions, and
interactions between people and exchanging communications by a group of
people using rules and instructions. Final Act. 16–17; Ans. 4–7.
The Examiner determines that the additional elements of a computer
system, communications systems, and a graphical user interface in a display
system do not improve computers or technology, effect a transformation or
reduction, or use the abstract idea in some meaningful way and therefore do
not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Final Act. 17–18;
Ans. 8–12. For similar reasons, the Examiner determines that the elements
considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea. Final Act. 19–20; Ans. 14–16.

3 US 2015/0046233 A1, published February 12, 2015.
4 US 2016/0299670 A1, published October 13, 2016.
5 US 9,530,119 B1, issued December 27, 2016.
6 US 2006/0026057 A1, published February 2, 2006.
7 US 2007/0202907 A1, published August 30, 2007.
Appeal 2021-000888
Application 14/795,243

4
Principles of Law
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or
any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent
therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are
not patentable. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first
determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id.
at 217. If they are, we consider the claim elements, individually and as an
ordered combination, to determine if any additional elements provide an
inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to
significantly more than a patent on the ineligible concept. Id. at 217–18.
The USPTO has issued guidance about this framework. 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”). To determine if a claim is “directed to” an abstract
idea, we evaluate whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions,
including certain groupings of abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance
(i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities
such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application.8 Id. at 52–55.

8 “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application
will 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.
Appeal 2021-000888
Application 14/795,243

5
If a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, we consider whether the claim
(3) provides an inventive concept such as by adding a limitation beyond a
judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the
field or (4) appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Revised Guidance Step 1
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites a method, which is a
statutory category of invention, namely, a process. See Final Act. 16.
Alice Step One
Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong One:
Do the Claims Recite a Judicial Exception?
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites certain methods of
organizing human activity by managing relationships/interactions between
people and following rules or instructions for the use of communications
channels by groups of people in communication. Managing allocations of,
or access to, communication resources is a fundamental practice. See Final
Act. 16. Some steps also recite mental processes.
The Specification indicates that the method manages communications
of groups of people by monitoring their use of communications channels to
identify potential changes to communications channels that reallocate the
communications resources to enable more efficient interactions and use of
the communications system. See Spec. ¶¶ 2–16. The method proactively
manages access to communications resources and improves on systems that
generate alarms when communications resources are exceeded. Id. ¶ 38.
Appeal 2021-000888
Application 14/795,243

6
Controlling access to resources is a fundamental practice that can be
performed as a mental process or using a pen and paper. See Ericsson Inc. v.
TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(banks offer/deny loans, libraries loan materials, employees access office
buildings); WhitServe LLC v. Donuts Inc., 809 F. App’x 929, 933 (Fed. Cir.
2020) (“The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar
network as a tool to perform a fundamental economic practice involving
simple information exchange. Carrying out fundamental economic practices
involving simple information exchange is an abstract idea.”).
The claimed method manages communications channels to improve
commercial interactions and relationships of people involved in marketing,
sales, product development, corporate operations, public relations, customer
satisfaction objectives, and operations to meet objectives in those areas. See
Spec. ¶¶ 2–14, 57–64, 95–100. The method monitors communications of
people to identify who is making communications, how communications are
made, and whether to add, delete, prioritize, or reallocate communications
channels to increase contributions of those using the system, meet corporate
objectives, reduce cost, and improve efficiency. Id. ¶¶ 5–13, 55–64, 90–108.
Claim 1 recites steps of monitoring and changing access to resources
using a radar chart to display the use of plural communications channels by a
group of people, identify and display a group of potential changes to the
communications channels based on a policy, receive user input to implement
one of a group of potential changes, and change communications channels
by changing allocations of resources for communications channels, adding a
new communications channel, or removing one of the communications
channels. See Appeal Br. 26–27 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2021-000888
Application 14/795,243

7
Appellant argues that the Revised Guidance indicates that “‘managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people’ includes
‘social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions’” and none of
these activities is claimed. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues that the claims
are directed to managing the allocation of computer resources among plural
communication channels to improve the efficiency of computer systems and
communication networks rather than interactions between people. Id. at 10.
Appellant asserts that the claimed use of communication channels by groups
of people is to monitor the usage of the channels and change aspects of the
channels to improve computer systems and networks. Id.
As discussed above, managing the allocation of communications
resources to control access thereto is a fundamental, long pervasive practice
that can be performed as a mental process and used to organize human
activity. See Ericsson, 955 F.3d at 1327; WhitServe, 809 F. App’x at 933.
The Specification indicates the allocation of communications channel
resources manages interactions of users of the channels. Spec. ¶¶ 5–13, 55–
61, 85–108. The method reallocates channel resources to increase group
contributions, meet objectives, reduce costs, and improve efficient use of
resources. Id. ¶¶ 42, 61–66, 90–94, 152, 165. Optimizing communications
channel resources and use is similar to other concepts that are fundamental
economic concepts when recited at this level of generality. See OIP Techs.,
Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (offer-based
price optimization); see also In re Gopalan, 809 F. App’x 942, 946 (Fed.
Cir. 2020) (optimizing measurement strategies for spectral signals using an
“optimization technique” and “an optimization parameter” claims a result
without any technical details or a concrete solution or way to achieve it).
Appeal 2021-000888
Application 14/795,243

8
The Specification indicates “a policy” is used to identify changes to
communications channels based on rules that increase a communications
goal of people, increase contributions by a team using the communications
system, reduce the cost, or reach a utilization. Id. ¶¶ 90–92; see Ans. 7.
Managing communications channels according to rules to perform
tasks of reallocating communications channels to improve interactions
among groups of people recites an abstract idea at this level of generality.
See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316–18
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (managing email messages by applying business rules to the
messages and taking action based on the application of those rules recites
mental processes); Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software,
Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344–45 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (generating tasks based on
rules and event occurrences is an abstract idea); see also ChargePoint, Inc.
v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (communication over a
network for device interaction is a building block of the modern economy).
Steps of collecting data (the use of plural communications channels),
analyzing the data to identify potential changes, and displaying the data with
potential changes for users to select recite the abstract idea identified above.
See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–55 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (claim to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying
certain results of the collection and analysis is an abstract idea that can be
performed as a mental process). The claim in Electric Power collected data
from an electric power grid, analyzed the data in real-time to detect events,
and displayed the analysis results with diagnoses. Id. at 1351–52. Yet, the
claim recited nothing to differentiate it from mental processes. Id. at 1355.
Thus, we determine claim 1 recites the abstract idea identified above.
Appeal 2021-000888
Application 14/795,243

9
Alice Step One
Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong Two:
Is There an Integration into a Practical Application?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites additional elements that
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54. We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not
improve computers or other technology or implement the abstract idea with
a particular machine that is integral to the claim. Nor does claim 1 include
elements that transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or
thing or apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking it to a
particular technological environment. Id. at 55; see Final Act. 17–18.
The “computer system” and “graphical user interface in a display
system” are recited as generic components that perform generic functions of
monitoring a use of communications channels, displaying the use on a radar
chart in a graphical user interface in a display system, and identifying and
displaying potential changes without any technical details of that process.
The Specification describes the computer system 116 as a hardware
system with one or more data processing systems that communicate with one
another and may include a computer, a server computer, a tablet, or another
suitable data processing system. Spec. ¶ 52. Computer system 116 includes
a display system 118, which is a hardware system including display devices
on which a graphical user interface 120 may be displayed. Id. ¶ 53. The
graphical user interface 120 is used by an operator to visualize information
and interface with communications manager 114. Id. ¶ 54. Such generic
computer implementation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (generic computer implementation
does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention).
Appeal 2021-000888
Application 14/795,243

10
Appellant asserts that the present claims are similar to claims found
patent eligible in SRI. Appeal Br. 11 (citing SRI Int’l v. Cisco Sys, Inc., 930
F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Appellant argues that the claims in SRI
used plural network monitors to analyze specific network traffic data and
integrate generated reports from the monitors to identify network hackers
and intruders. Id. Appellant argues that the present claims monitor plural
communications channels and use that information to improve functioning
of the communications system, which solves a technological problem in a
technological field of communications. Id.
In SRI, the claims recited a specific technique of using plural network
monitors to analyze specific types of network data and integrate the reports
of each monitor to solve a technological problem of identifying hackers and
intruders in computer networks. SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 930 F.3d
1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The plural network monitors analyzed network
packet data transfer commands, network packet data transfer errors, network
packet data volume, network connection requests, network packet error
codes, network connection denials, network connection acknowledgements,
and network packets of network-service protocols. Id. at 1301, 1303–04.
The claims were patent eligible because “the claims are not directed to just
analyzing data from multiple sources to detect suspicious activity.” Id. at
1303. Here, claim 1 monitors data from multiple communication channels
to detect changes that require reallocation of the communications channels
without reciting technical details or improvements of computer, network, or
communications systems used to achieve that result. Merely displaying the
results of the collection and analysis is abstract as an ancillary part of the
collection and analysis. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354.
Appeal 2021-000888
Application 14/795,243

11
Analyzing channel use to identify potential changes applies policy
rules to increase a communications goal such as increasing contributions by
a group of people using the system, meeting an objective, or reducing a cost
of the system. Spec. ¶ 61. Changes include priority of use of channels and
types of communications, and allocations of channel resources. Id.
As such, analyzing the use of generic communications channels to
identify potential changes recites the abstract idea identified under Prong
One implemented with generic components as tools without improving the
computers, networks, or communications. This feature does not integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application. See Accenture, 728 F.3d
at 1344–45 (claims to generating tasks based on rules to be completed upon
the occurrence of an event recited an abstract idea and its implementation on
a generic computer without any meaningful limitations to the concept did
not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application).
Appellant asserts that similar claims were patent eligible in Core
Wireless. Appeal Br. 11 (citing Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Appellant argues that a “radar chart” helps
a user manage resources allocated to communication channels by improving
the visualization of the usage and potential changes in the system similar to
claims in Core Wireless that improved user navigation. Id. at 11–12.
In Core Wireless, an application summary window was accessible
from the menu. It listed a limited set of data that was selectable to launch a
respective application to enable the data to be seen in the application, and a
summary window was displayed while the applications were in unlaunched
states. Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1362–63. Here, claim 1 displays data to
help users process it more quickly without improving computers or displays.
Appeal 2021-000888
Application 14/795,243

12
We reproduce Appellant’s Figure 9 below to illustrate a radar chart.

Appellant’s Figure 9 above illustrates a radar chart that tracks the use
of telecom channels 920, internet channels 918, and email server 942 used
by direct sales team 910, marketing team 912, and service team 914. Spec.
¶¶ 126–129. Channel use by direct sales team 910 is shown by line 926.
Channel use by marketing team 912 is shown by line 922. Channel use by
service team 914 is shown by line 924. Id. ¶ 128. Suggested change 906 is
to add resources for service team 914 to message board 930 and chat server
934. Id. ¶ 130. Even if this configuration of the radar chart depicts plural
communications channels in a way that is easier to understand, it does not
improve displays, computers, or networks.
As our reviewing court held in a similar situation:
Appeal 2021-000888
Application 14/795,243

13
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. The claims require
displaying P&L values along an axis, displaying an indicator
representing market information at a location on the axis, and
moving the indicator to a second location. The “tool for
presentation” here . . . is simply a generic computer. . . . While
the fact that an invention is run on a generic computer does not,
by itself, “doom the claims,” . . . the claims here fail because
arranging information along an axis does not improve the
functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently,
or solve any technological problem. Like Electric Power, the
purported advance “is a process of gathering and analyzing
information of a specified content, then displaying the results,
and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for
performing those functions.”
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384–85 (Fed. Cir.
2019) (citations omitted); see Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (“[M]erely
selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and
display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary
mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the
information-based category of abstract ideas.”).
Generic speed and efficiency improvements from a generic computer
implementation do not improve computer functions. See Customedia Techs,
LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see also
Bozeman Fin. LLC v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 955 F.3d 971, 979 (Fed.
Cir. 2020) (using well-known computer components to collect, analyze, and
present data does not render the claims any less abstract); Credit Acceptance
Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the mere
automation of manual processes using generic computers is not a patentable
improvement to computer technology); Spec. ¶¶ 14–16.
Appeal 2021-000888
Application 14/795,243

14
Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 lacks additional elements that
are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Alice, Step Two and Revised Guidance Step 2B:
Do the Claims Include an Inventive Concept?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements,
individually or as an ordered combination, to provide an inventive concept.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. This step is satisfied when the claim limitations
involve more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities
known in the industry. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367
(Fed. Cir. 2018); Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (the second step of
the Alice analysis considers if a claim adds a limitation beyond the judicial
exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity).
Individually, a computer system, communications channels/hardware
system, and graphical user interface in a display system are known computer
components used to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional acts
of monitoring, analyzing, and displaying data to implement the abstract idea
without providing an inventive concept. The generic description of these
elements in the Specification indicates that they are well-known enough that
further details are not required to understand their structure or function, and
they do not improve computers or other technology. See Spec. ¶¶ 45, 49–57.
Without these generic computer limitations, nothing remains in the claims
but the abstract idea identified under Prong One. Bancorp, 687 F.3d
at 1280. “[A] claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is
directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention
‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” BSG Tech LLC v.
Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appeal 2021-000888
Application 14/795,243

15
As an ordered combination, claim 1 recites no more than when the
limitations are considered individually. BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290–91 (“If a
claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using
conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been
transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.”); Elec.
Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (using off-the-shelf, conventional computer,
network, and display technology to gather, send, and present information did
not provide an inventive concept); see also Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast
Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of
processing data, routing it, controlling it, and monitoring its reception with
conventional technology did not provide an inventive step where complying
with network communication protocols and routing data in response to user
signals were claimed without specifying protocol rules or parameters).
Nor has Appellant established that these elements perform functions
that are innovative or unconventional. Even if the steps are groundbreaking,
innovative, or brilliant, the improvement is to the abstract idea rather than to
computers or technology. See Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad
Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“No matter how much of an
advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the
realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-
abstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for
patenting.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract
idea.”). Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2, 4–15, 17–27,
and 29–37, which fall therewith.
Appeal 2021-000888
Application 14/795,243

16
Claims 1, 2, 4–15, 17–27, and 29–37
Rejected over Srulowitz, Breedvelt-Schouten, Grisso, Ikeda, and Shaffer
The Examiner finds that Srulowitz teaches plural communications
channels, each comprising a hardware system but does not display the use of
the plural communications channels on a radar chart or display a group of
potential changes to the communications channels along the radar chart or
change the channels to implement one of the potential changes as recited in
independent clams 1, 14, and 26. Final Act. 23–29, 51–52. The Examiner
relies on Breedvelt-Schouten to teach a radar chart with axes that correspond
to only one of the plurality of communications channels. Id. at 29–30. In
particular, the Examiner cites Figure 6C to illustrate plural axes extending
from a common origin. Ans. 21–22.
Appellant asserts that Srulowitz does not monitor plural channels of
communication, each of which comprises a hardware system but instead
monitors the use of a single network by users. Appeal Br. 15–16. Appellant
asserts that Srulowitz monitors a single network connection used by users of
various services but does not monitor plural communication channels, each
comprising a hardware system as claimed. Id. at 16–18.
We agree with the Examiner that Srulowitz monitors a plurality of
communications channels that comprise a hardware system as claimed. The
communication channels are email systems, instant messaging message
systems, message boards, private message systems, voice mail systems,
public switched telephone networks, video conference systems, social
networks, and other hardware systems that facilitate communication. Spec.
¶ 45. Physical hardware includes a data processing system, a computer, a
router, a switch, or other suitable hardware device. Id.
Appeal 2021-000888
Application 14/795,243

17
Srulowitz uses computer system 10 to monitor plural communications
channels that comprise a hardware system. The communications channels
convey electronic communications data such as email from an email server
computer or appointments from a calendar system. Srulowitz ¶ 28 (cited in
Ans. 17). The computer system 10 also receives communications data from
external systems over the Internet to include social network websites. Id.
Computer system 10 can push or pull email communications from email
servers or social network systems and receive email communications data
via network connection 6. Id. ¶¶ 30, 31. Other electronic communications
data that are monitored and received includes phone logs, voice mail, video,
and audio. Id. ¶ 28. Srulowitz thus monitors communications channels and
hardware systems as interpreted in light of the Specification. Id. ¶¶ 28–31.
Appellant asserts that Breedvelt-Schouten does not teach radial axes
where each axis corresponds to only one channel as claimed. Appeal
Br. 18–20, 24. Appellant argues that each radial bar refers to different
channels rather than only one channel as claimed. Id. at 18–20. We agree.
Breedvelt-Schouten uses GUI 400 to depict preferences of users A, B,
and C for three communication channels as stacked bars 410, 420, 430.
Breedvelt-Schouten ¶¶ 48, 50, 55, Figs. 6A–6D. Each bar 410, 420, 430
indicates a preference of a user A, B, C for three communication channels.
Id. ¶¶ 48, 55, 61. “Each preference bar 410, 420, 430 represents a set of
stacked tendency/preference values of multiple communication channels for
each user A, B, C.” Id. ¶¶ 47 (emphasis added). Each bar thus represents a
user’s preferences for several communications channels rather than only one
channel as claimed. Id. ¶¶ 48, 55. We reproduce Figures 6A and 6C of
Breedvelt-Schouten below to illustrate these stacked bars 410, 420, 430.
Appeal 2021-000888
Application 14/795,243

18

Appeal 2021-000888
Application 14/795,243

19
Figure 6A of Breedvelt-Schouten illustrates each bar 410, 420, 430 as
an axis that includes multiple communications channels such as channels
412–416 for user A (bar 410), channels 422–426 for user B (bar 430), and
channels 432–436 for user C (bar 430). This embodiment does not teach or
suggest axes of a radar chart where each axis (bar 410, 420, 430) represents
“only one of the plurality of communications channels” as claimed.
Figure 6C of Breedvelt-Schouten illustrates each bar 410, 420, 430 as
an axis, which Breedvelt-Schouten describes as multiple communications for
each user. Breedvelt-Schouten ¶ 55. The stacks are displayed with the least
disliked channel applied rather than the most preferred channel as Figure 6A
illustrates. Id. Yet, they indicate users’ preferences for multiple channels of
communication rather than only one communication channel as claimed.
Even if the portions of bars 410, 420 that extend radially are treated as
depicting a single channel, as the Examiner appears to find (see Ans. 21–23),
they do not extend from a “common origin” as claimed. See Appeal Br. 26,
30, 33). Stack 410 extends from circle 444, whereas stack 420 extends from
circle 446. Circle 444 and 446 represent different communications channels.
Breedvelt-Schouten ¶¶ 54–60. Neither stack 410, 420 extends from central
circle 442. The third stack 430 includes two different channels in its radial
portion. See Reply Br. 8–9. Therefore, the Figure 6C embodiment does not
illustrate plural axes that each extend from a common origin in which each
axis corresponds to only one of plural communications channels as claimed.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 14, and 26 or
their respective dependent claims 2, 4–13, 15, 17–25, 27, and 29–37.
Appeal 2021-000888
Application 14/795,243

20
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–15,
17–27, 29–37
101 Eligibility 1, 2, 4–15,
17–27, 29–
37

1, 2, 4–15,
17–27, 29–37
103 Srulowitz,
Breedvelt-Schouten,
Grisso, Ikeda,
Shaffer
1, 2, 4–15,
17–27, 29–
37
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–15,
17–27, 29–
37

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