Biplav Srivastava et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 30, 2019

14788587 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 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.
14/788,587 06/30/2015 Biplav Srivastava IN920150045US1
(790.243)
9365
89885 7590 08/30/2019
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
SPIELER, WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2019 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BIPLAV SRIVASTAVA and
SRIKANTH GOVINDARAJ TAMILSELVAM
____________

Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention uses a query system to (1) search a document
collection, and (2) learn an object type for each result using concepts and
relationships from a collection of object-type ontologies. Spec. ¶ 21. These
object types correspond to categories under which search results can be

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

2
grouped to distinguish the results, such as “house,” “person,” or “book.” Id.
For example, a search for “White House” can yield a large number of results
on many pages that the user would have to scroll or click through. Id. ¶ 24.
But, as shown in Figure 1, the present invention not only prominently
displays instances of the search’s best matching object type, namely,
“house,” in the box labeled 107, but it also shows, on the same screen, (1)
other such instances 109 (including a smaller version of the most likely
instance 107a), and (2) alternative object types in box 111. See id. ¶ 26.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of displaying results of one or more query
searches, said method comprising:

utilizing at least one processor to execute computer code
that performs the steps of:

obtaining query search results;

determining, from the query search results, a plurality of
object types;

selecting one of the plurality of object types as a most
relevant object type associated with the query search results;

identifying a primary instance of the selected object type
from a plurality of instances associated with the selected object
type; and

displaying the search results on a single screen via
showing the primary instance of the selected object type in a
first display box comprising at least one image graphic and text
data associated with the primary instance of the selected object
type, the plurality of instances associated with the selected
object type in a plurality of second display boxes, and at least
one other object type selected from the plurality of object types
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

3
in a third display box presented in a drop-down list, wherein the
first display box is larger than the plurality of second display
boxes and the third display box.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 3–7.2
The Examiner rejected claims 1–6 and 13–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Broker (US 2006/0179035 A1; published Aug. 10,
2006), Pontier (US 2012/0005198 A1; published Jan. 5, 2012), and Hurst-
Hiller (US 2006/0004716 A1; published Jan. 5, 2006). Final Act. 7–11.
The Examiner rejected claims 7–12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Broker, Pontier, Hurst-Hiller, and Macklem (US
2013/0054583 A1; published Feb. 28, 2013). Final Act. 12–17.

THE INELIGIBILITY REJECTION
The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to an abstract
idea, namely, displaying search results. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. The Examiner
adds that the claims do not include elements that add significantly more than
the abstract idea, but merely recite, among other things, generic computer
elements performing conventional computer functions. See Final Act. 5–6;
Ans. 4–5.

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed October
18, 2017 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed March 19, 2018
(supplemented May 4, 2018) (“App. Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer
mailed June 26, 2018 (“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed August 27,
2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

4
Appellants argue that the Examiner oversimplified the recited
limitations, and argue that the claimed invention is eligible because it
provides, among other things, a technological improvement over existing
techniques for displaying search results by using a more compact and
detailed format where the results’ relevancy can be differentiated by size.
App. Br. 22–27; Reply Br. 24–29. Appellants add that the claimed invention
adds significantly more to the purported abstract idea by reciting an
unconventional combination of techniques that confine any abstract idea to a
practical application of that idea. App. Br. 27–29; Reply Br. 30–31.

ISSUE
Under § 101, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–20 as
directed to ineligible subject matter? This issue turns on whether the claims
are directed to an abstract idea and, if so, whether recited elements—
considered individually and as an ordered combination—transform the
nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of that abstract idea.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.
208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

5
and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
(15 How.) 252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S.
at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). That
said, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

6
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[]
fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
In January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the
application of § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under that
guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

7
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (MPEP) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. Rev.
08.2017, Jan. 2018)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field
(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–20: Alice/Mayo Step One
Representative independent claim 1 recites a method of displaying
query search results that uses a processor to execute computer code to:
(1) obtain query search results; (2) determine plural object types from the
results; (3) select the most relevant object type associated with the results;
(4) identify a primary instance of the selected object type; and (5) display the
search results on a single screen via showing (a) the primary instance of the
selected object type in a first display box comprising at least one image
graphic and text data associated with the selected object type; (b) the
instances associated with the selected object type in plural second display
boxes; and (c) at least one other selected object type in a third display box
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

8
presented in a drop-down list, where the first display box is larger than the
second and third display boxes.
As the disclosure explains, in one embodiment, Appellants’ invention
uses a query system to (1) search a document collection, and (2) learn an
object type for each result using concepts and relationships from a collection
of object-type ontologies. Spec. ¶ 21. These object types correspond to
categories under which search results can be grouped to distinguish the
results, such as “house,” “person,” or “book.” Id. For example, a search for
“White House” can yield a large number of results on many pages that the
user would have to scroll or click through. Id. ¶ 24. But, as shown in Figure
1, the present invention not only prominently displays instances of the
search’s best matching object type, namely “house,” in the box labeled 107,
but it also shows, on the same screen, (1) other such instances 109 (including
a smaller version of the most likely instance 107a), and (2) alternative object
types in box 111. See id. ¶ 26.
Turning to claim 1, we first note that the claim recites a method and,
therefore, falls within the process category of § 101. But despite falling
within this statutory category, we must still determine whether the claim is
directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S.
at 217. To this end, we must determine whether the claim (1) recites a
judicial exception, and (2) fails to integrate the exception into a practical
application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55. If both elements are
satisfied, the claim is directed to a judicial exception under the first step of
the Alice/Mayo test. See id.
In the rejection, the Examiner determines that claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea, namely, displaying search results. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. To
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

9
determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, we (1) identify the
claim’s specific limitations that recite an abstract idea, and (2) determine
whether the identified limitations fall within certain subject matter
groupings, namely, (a) mathematical concepts3; (b) certain methods of
organizing human activity4; or (c) mental processes.5
Here, apart from the recited (1) utilizing at least one processor to
execute computer code6 that performs the recited steps; (2) screen; and (3)
drop-down list, all of claim 1’s recited limitations, which collectively are
directed to displaying search results with respect to associated selected
object types, fit squarely within at least one of the above categories of the
USPTO’s guidelines.
First, obtaining query search results involves at least mental
processes, at least to the extent that a person could search for—and obtain—
certain information entirely mentally by merely reading pertinent records or
other associated information, and cognitively comparing that information to

3 Mathematical concepts include mathematical relationships, mathematical
formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52.
4 Certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental
economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating
risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of
contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships
or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and
following rules or instructions). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
5 Mental processes are concepts performed in the human mind including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52.
6 Unless otherwise indicated, we italicize or quote text reproducing recited
limitations for emphasis and clarity.
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

10
a memorized search query or writing this information down. Cf.
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (noting that limitation reciting obtaining information about
transactions that have used an Internet address identified with a credit card
transaction can be performed by a human who simply reads records of
Internet credit card transactions from a pre-existing database). Alternatively,
this recited limitation involves at least personal interactions, including
following rules or instructions, at least to the extent that a person could
obtain query search results by communicating with another person with such
knowledge, such as a colleague, and either memorizing or writing down the
information received from that other person. Cf. id.; Evolutionary
Intelligence LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 677 F. App’x 679, 679–81 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (holding ineligible computer-implemented method
of U.S. Patent 7,702,682 reciting, among other things, (1) receiving a search
query; (2) searching, using the computer, first container registers
encapsulated and logically defined in plural containers to identify identified
containers responsive to the search query; (3) encapsulating the identified
containers in a new container; (4) updating second container registers of the
identified containers with data associated with interactions of the identified
containers with the new container; and (5) providing a list characterizing the
identified containers as directed to the abstract idea of selecting and sorting
information by user interest or subject matter—a longstanding activity of
libraries and other human enterprises); In re Salwan, 681 F.App’x 938, 939–
41 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (holding ineligible claims reciting, among
other things, receiving medical records information and transmitting reports
where the claimed invention’s objective was to enable electronic
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

11
communication of tasks that were otherwise done manually using paper,
phone, and facsimile machine); Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896
F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (noting that a nontechnical human activity
of passing a note to a person who is in a meeting or conversation as
illustrating the invention’s focus, namely, providing information to a person
without interfering with the person’s primary activity); LendingTree, LLC v.
Zillow, Inc., 656 F. App’x 991, 993–94, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (unpublished)
(holding ineligible claims reciting, among other things, (1) receiving
selection criteria from lending institutions and credit data from a computer
user, and (2) forwarding the credit data to selected lending institutions as
directed to an abstract idea); TLI Commc’ns. LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C.,
823 F.3d 607, 610–14 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding ineligible claims reciting
recording and administering digital images including (1) recording images
using a digital pick-up unit in a telephone unit; (2) storing the recorded
images; (3) transmitting data including the images and classification
information to a server; (4) extracting the received classification
information; and (5) storing the images in the server considering that
information). Therefore, the recited receiving limitation falls squarely
within the mental processes and methods of organizing human activity
categories of the agency’s guidelines and, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary (1) mental processes
including observation and evaluation, and (2) methods of organizing human
activity, including personal interactions and following rules or instructions).
Second, the limitations calling for (1) determining, from the query
search results, a plurality of object types; (2) selecting one of the plurality of
object types as a most relevant object type associated with the query search
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

12
results; and (3) identifying a primary instance of the selected object type
from a plurality of instances associated with the selected object type can be
performed entirely mentally by merely (1) thinking about—or writing
down—object types associated with the obtained search results, namely
categories under which to group the search results (see Spec. ¶ 21); and (2)
either cognitively, or with pen and paper, (a) selecting the most relevant
object type; and (b) identifying a primary instance of that selected object
type—steps that involve mere observation and logical reasoning. Cf.
CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 (noting that a recited step that utilized a map
of credit card numbers to determine the validity of a credit card transaction
could be performed entirely mentally by merely using logical reasoning to
identify a likely instance of fraud by merely observing that numerous
transactions using different credit cards all originated from the same IP
address); SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., 555 F. App’x 950,
952 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (unpublished) (holding ineligible a claim reciting a
method for guiding selection of a therapeutic treatment regimen for a patient
with a known disease or medical condition, where the method provided
patient information to a computing device comprising (1) a first knowledge
base with different therapeutic treatment regimens for the disease or medical
condition; (2) a second knowledge base with expert rules for evaluating and
selecting a therapeutic treatment regimen for the disease or medical
condition; and (3) a third knowledge base with advisory information useful
for treating a patient with different constituents of said different therapeutic
treatment regimens, where a ranked listing of available therapeutic treatment
regimens for the patient was generated, as well as advisory information for a
treatment regimen in the ranked listing based on the patient information and
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

13
expert rules); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding ineligible claims
directed to (1) collecting data; (2) recognizing certain data within the
collected data set; and (3) storing the recognized data in memory).
Therefore, the recited determining, selecting, and identifying steps fall
squarely within the mental processes category of the USPTO’s guidelines
and, therefore, recite an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52
(listing exemplary mental processes including observation and evaluation).
Third, the limitation calling for displaying the search results . . . via
showing the primary instance of the selected object type in a first display
box comprising at least one image graphic and text data associated with the
primary instance of the selected object type, the plurality of instances
associated with the selected object type in a plurality of second display
boxes, and at least one other object type selected from the plurality of object
types in a third display box presented in a . . . list, wherein the first display
box is larger than the plurality of second display boxes and the third display
box, can be performed entirely mentally by merely (1) thinking about—or
writing down—the instances associated with the selected object type, as well
as other object types; (2) cognitively segregating these elements; and (3)
graphically representing that segregation by using a pen or pencil to (a) draw
four display boxes on a single piece of paper, where one box is larger than
the others, and (b) include the respective recited elements in those drawn
boxes. This box-based representation would merely involve writing the
respective information in the drawn boxes including (1) drawing an image
graphic and writing text data associated with the selected object type’s
primary instance in the larger first display box; (2) writing down instances
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

14
associated with the selected object type in two other boxes; and (3) writing
down a list of object types in a fourth box. In short, these steps involve mere
observation and logical reasoning. Cf. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372
(noting that a recited step that utilized a map of credit card numbers to
determine the validity of a credit card transaction could be performed
entirely mentally by merely using logical reasoning to identify a likely
instance of fraud by merely observing that numerous transactions using
different credit cards all originated from the same IP address); see also id.
(noting that a person could construct a map of credit card numbers by merely
writing down a list of credit card transactions made from a particular IP
address); Evolutionary Intelligence, 677 F. App’x at 679–681 (holding
ineligible computer-implemented method of U.S. Patent 7,702,682 reciting,
among other things, (1) receiving a search query; (2) searching, using the
computer, first container registers encapsulated and logically defined in
plural containers to identify identified containers responsive to the search
query; (3) encapsulating the identified containers in a new container; (4)
updating second container registers of the identified containers with data
associated with interactions of the identified containers with the new
container; and (5) providing a list characterizing the identified containers as
directed to the abstract idea of selecting and sorting information by user
interest or subject matter—a longstanding activity of libraries and other
human enterprises); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306,
1312, 1330–36 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding ineligible claims directed to
product price determination using sorted pricing information according to,
among other things, arranged hierarchies of organizational and product
groups); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1234–43 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

15
2016) (holding ineligible claims reciting information management system
that can generate a second menu from a first menu by allowing (1) selecting
categories and items from the first menu; (2) adding menu categories to the
first menu; (3) assigning parameters to items in the second menu using a
graphical user interface). Thus, the recited displaying step falls within the
mental processes category of the USPTO’s guidelines and, therefore, recites
an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary mental
processes, including observation and evaluation).
Although the claim recites an abstract idea based on these methods of
organizing human activity and mental processes, we nevertheless must
determine whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application,
namely, whether the claim applies, relies on, or uses the abstract idea in a
manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the
claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. To this end, we (1) identify whether
there are any additional recited elements beyond the abstract idea, and (2)
evaluate those elements individually and collectively to determine whether
they integrate the exception into a practical application. See id.
Here, the recited (1) utilizing at least one processor to execute
computer code that performs the recited steps; (2) screen; and (3) drop-down
list are the only recited elements beyond the abstract idea, but those
additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application when reading claim 1 as a whole. First, we are not persuaded
that the claimed invention improves a computer or its components’
functionality or efficiency, or otherwise changes the way those devices
function, at least in the sense contemplated by the Federal Circuit in Enfish,
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

16
LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), despite
Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 24; Reply Br. 26). The
claimed self-referential table in Enfish was a specific type of data structure
designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in
memory. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339. To the extent Appellants contend that
the claimed invention uses such a data structure to improve a computer’s
functionality or efficiency, or otherwise change the way that device
functions, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such
a contention.
To the extent Appellants contend that the claimed invention is rooted
in technology because it is ostensibly directed to a technical solution (see
App. Br. 22–27; Reply Br. 24–29), we disagree. Even assuming, without
deciding, that the claimed invention can display search results with respect
to associated selected object types faster or more efficiently than doing so
manually, any speed increase comes from the capabilities of the generic
computer components—not the recited process itself. See FairWarning IP,
LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d
1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could
be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the
patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”)); see also Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 711 F. App’x 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (unpublished) (“Though the claims purport to accelerate the process
of finding errant files and to reduce error, we have held that speed and
accuracy increases stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general-
purpose computer ‘do[] not materially alter the patent eligibility of the
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

17
claimed subject matter.’”). Like the claims in FairWarning, the focus of
claim 1 is not on an improvement in computer processors as tools, but on
certain independently abstract ideas that use generic computing components
as tools. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095.
Nor is this invention analogous to that which the court held eligible in
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.
2016) despite Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 25–26; Reply
Br. 29). There, the claimed process used a combined order of specific rules
that rendered information in a specific format that was applied to create a
sequence of synchronized, animated characters. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315.
Notably, the recited process automatically animated characters using
particular information and techniques—an improvement over manual three-
dimensional animation techniques that was not directed to an abstract idea.
Id. at 1316.
But, unlike the claimed invention in McRO that improved how the
physical display operated to produce better quality images, the claimed
invention here merely uses generic computing components to display search
results with respect to associated selected object types. This generic
computer implementation is not only directed to organizing human activity
and mental processes, but also does not improve a display mechanism as was
the case in McRO. See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161,
1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (distinguishing McRO).
Nor is the claimed invention analogous to that which the court held
eligible in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d
1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). There, the court held eligible claims reciting a
computing device that could display an application summary window that
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

18
was not only reachable directly from the main menu, but could also display a
limited list of selectable functions while the application was in an un-
launched state. Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1360–63. Upon selecting a
function, the device would then launch the application and initiate the
selected function. Id. at 1360. In reaching its eligibility conclusion, the
court noted that the claimed invention was directed to an improved user
interface for computing devices that used a particular manner of
summarizing and presenting a limited set of information to the user, unlike
conventional user interface methods that displayed a generic index on a
computer. Id. at 1362–63.
That is not the case here. Although the claimed invention displays
search results with respect to associated selected object types on a single
screen using four or more display boxes, one of which is larger than the
others, the claimed invention differs significantly from the particular
improvements in computer capabilities provided by the invention in Core
Wireless that, among other things, precluded the need for the user to (1)
navigate to the required application; (2) open it up; and (3) navigate within
that application to enable the data of interest to be seen or activate a function
of interest. See Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363. To the extent Appellants
contend that the claimed invention here is directed to such improvements in
computer capabilities (see App. Br. 22–27; Reply Br. 24–29), we disagree.
In conclusion, although the recited functions may be beneficial by
displaying search results with respect to associated selected object types, a
claim for a useful or beneficial abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379–80 (Fed.
Cir. 2015).
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

19
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea.

Claims 1–20: Alice/Mayo Step Two
Turning to Alice/Mayo step two, claim 1’s additional recited elements,
namely, the recited (1) utilizing at least one processor to execute computer
code that performs the recited steps; (2) screen; and (3) drop-down list—
considered individually and as an ordered combination—do not provide an
inventive concept such that these additional elements amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221; see also Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 56. As noted above, the claimed invention merely uses
generic computing components to implement the recited abstract idea.
To the extent Appellants contend that the recited limitations, including
those detailed above in connection with Alice step one, add significantly
more than the abstract idea to provide an inventive concept under
Alice/Mayo step two (see App. Br. 27–29; Reply Br. 30–31), these
limitations are not additional elements beyond the abstract idea, but rather
are directed to the abstract idea as noted previously. See Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 56 (instructing that additional recited elements should be evaluated
in Alice/Mayo step two to determine whether they (1) add specific
limitations that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the
field, or (2) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry (citing MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Rather, the recited (1) utilizing at least one processor to execute
computer code that performs the recited steps; (2) screen; and (3) drop-down
list are the only additional recited elements—elements whose generic
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

20
computing functionality is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See
FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1096 (noting that using generic computing
components like a microprocessor or user interface does not transform an
otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter); Mortgage Grader, Inc.
v. First Choice Loan Servs., Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(noting that components such an “interface,” “network,” and “database” are
generic computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept
requirement); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343,
1343–49 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding ineligible claims reciting providing an
intelligent user interface to an online application comprising (1) furnishing
plural hyperlinked icons on a displayed web page, and (2) displaying a
dynamically generated online application form set responsive to activating
an icon as directed to the abstract idea of retaining information in navigating
online forms); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Captial One Bank (USA), 792
F.3d 1363, 1368 (noting that a recited user profile (i.e., a profile keyed to a
user identity), database, and communication medium are generic computer
elements); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a
network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”).
Accord Spec. ¶¶ 40–47, 51–56 (describing generic computer components
used to implement the invention); Final Act. 4–6 (concluding that the
claims’ generic computer functions do not add significantly more than the
abstract idea).
Appellants’ reliance on BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v.
AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (App. Br. 29; Reply
Br. 31) is unavailing. There, the court held eligible claims directed to a
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

21
technology-based solution to filter Internet content that overcame existing
problems with other Internet filtering systems by making a known filtering
solution—namely a “one-size-fits-all” filter at an Internet Service Provider
(ISP)—more dynamic and efficient via individualized filtering at the ISP.
BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1351. Notably, this customizable filtering solution
improved the computer system’s performance and, therefore, was patent-
eligible. See id. But, unlike the filtering system improvements in BASCOM
that added significantly more to the abstract idea in that case, the claimed
invention here uses generic computing components to implement an abstract
idea as noted previously.
In conclusion, the additional recited elements—considered
individually and as an ordered combination—do not add significantly more
than the abstract idea to provide an inventive concept under Alice/Mayo step
two. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221; see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2–20 not argued separately with particularity.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER BROKER, PONTIER, AND
HURST-HILLER

Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Broker discloses a method
of displaying query search results including, among other things, (1)
selecting a most relevant object type associated with the results, namely
“Documents” in the user interface in Figure 9; (2) identifying a primary
instance of the selected object type, namely the object type’s most relevant
result; and (3) displaying the results on a single screen via showing the
primary instance of the selected object type in a first display box comprising
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

22
text data associated with the primary instance of the selected object type, the
instances associated with the selected object type in plural second display
boxes, and at least one other object type, namely “Purchase Order,” selected
from the object types in a third display box presented in a drop-down list.
Final Act. 7–8. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Broker’s first
display box is neither (1) larger than the second display boxes and the third
display box, nor (2) comprises an image graphic, the Examiner cites Pontier
and Hurst-Hiller for teaching these respective features in concluding that the
claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 8–9.
Appellants argue that not only did the Examiner fail to articulate a
reason why ordinarily skilled artisans would have combined the cited
references, but the Examiner’s reliance on Pontier for teaching that the first
display box is larger than the second display boxes and the third display box
is misplaced. App. Br. 29–30; Reply Br. 32–33. According to Appellants,
Pontier’s icons that represent search results in Figure 3 are distinguishable
from the recited display boxes. App. Br. 30; Reply Br. 33.

ISSUES
(1) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Broker, Pontier, and Hurst-Hiller collectively would have taught
or suggested a search result display where the recited first display box is
larger than the second display boxes and the third display box (the “larger
box limitation”)?
(2) Is the Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited references
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

23

ANALYSIS
On this record, we see no error in the Examiner’s proposed
combination for at least suggesting the recited search result display, where
the first display box is larger than the second display boxes and the third
display box. In the rejection, the Examiner finds that the object type
“Documents” in Broker’s user interface in Figure 9 is selected as the most
relevant object type associated with the search results because it is listed
higher than other object types (Final Act. 8)—a finding that is undisputed.
Nor do Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding that Broker’s user
interface in Figure 9 teaches the other display boxes, including a third
display box with another selected object type, namely “Purchase Order.”
See Final Act. 8. In short, the Examiner’s reliance on Broker’s Figure 9 for
teaching these display boxes is undisputed, despite the Examiner’s
acknowledging that Broker’s first display box (1) lacks an image graphic,
and (2) is not larger than the other boxes—deficiencies nonetheless cured by
Hurst-Hiller and Pontier, respectively. See Final Act. 8–9.
Rather, as noted above, this dispute centers on the Examiner’s reliance
on Pontier in connection with the larger box limitation. One key aspect of
Pontier’s system is that relevancy ranking of search results can be
represented graphically by the size of icons and/or text representing the
search results on a Venn diagram 330. Pontier ¶ 34. As shown in Pontier’s
Figure 3, reproduced below, the size of the search result “LINDA” is larger
than that for “PAUL” because the relevancy ranking for “LINDA” is greater
than “PAUL,” and the icons’ size is determined accordingly. See id.
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

24

Pontier’s Figure 3 showing icons representing search results

The clear import of this functionality is that a larger icon represents
search results that are more relevant than those represented by smaller icons.
Although these icons are not display boxes as Appellants indicate (App. Br.
30; Reply Br. 33), the Examiner cited Broker—not Pontier—for teaching the
recited display boxes as noted above. See Final Act. 8. Rather, Pontier was
cited merely to show that displaying elements whose relative size is
commensurate with the relevancy of its associated search results is known in
the art, and that applying such a relative-size-based relevancy representation
in connection with Broker’s display boxes would have been obvious to draw
the user’s eye to information that the system considers most relevant to the
user. See Ans. 4. Appellants’ arguments regarding Pontier’s individual
shortcomings in this regard (App. Br. 30; Reply Br. 33) do not show
Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

25
nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited
references’ collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, contrary to Appellants’ contention (App. Br. 29; Reply
Br. 32), the Examiner articulated not only a reason to combine Pontier with
Broker on page 4 of the Answer, as noted above, but the Examiner also
explained why it would have been obvious to also combine Hurst-Hiller with
the Broker/Pontier system, namely, to allow a user to preview a document
without having to navigate away from the search result page. See Final Act.
9. In short, the Examiner’s proposed enhancements use prior art elements
predictably according to their established functions—an obvious
improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
To the extent Appellants contend that applying a relative-size-based
relevancy representation of Broker’s display boxes in light of Pontier, as the
Examiner proposes, would have somehow been uniquely challenging or
otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans, there is no
persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. See
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007). Accordingly, we find the Examiner’s proposed combination of the
cited references is supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2–6 and 13–19 not argued separately with particularity.

Appeal 2018-008459
Application 14/788,587

26
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 7–12
and 20. Final Act. 12–17. Because this rejection is not argued separately
with particularity, we are not persuaded of error in this rejection for the
reasons previously discussed.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–20 under §§ 101 and
103.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED