Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2021

2020005949 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 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.
13/918,396 06/14/2013 James David Russell Barry 4672-13002AUS 1049
12684 7590 03/02/2021
Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC/CME
20 South Clark Street
Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60603
EXAMINER
POLLOCK, GREGORY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2021 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):
docket-us@lsk-iplaw.com
mail@lsk-iplaw.com
pair_lsk@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte JAMES DAVID RUSSELL BARRY
________________

Appeal 2020-005949
Application 13/918,396
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–6, 8–14, and 16–22, which constitute all of the
pending claims. Appeal Br. 5. These claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject
matter (an abstract idea) without significantly more. Final Action 2, mailed
November 15, 2019 (“Final Act.”).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1 The word “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Brief 2, filed April 17, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”).
2 Appellant cancelled claims 7 and 15 in the After-Final Amendment filed
January 10, 2020.
Appeal 2020-005949
Application 13/918,396

2
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in
light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
A computer implemented method of facilitating a financial
instrument transaction involving a market participant includes
generating a first interface for the market participant configured
for entry of data indicative of the financial instrument
transaction, capturing data indicative of a timing of the financial
instrument transaction based on the data entered via the first
interface, determining, with a processor, a timeframe for
reporting a price of the financial instrument transaction based on
the data indicative of the timing, and generating a second
interface for the market participant in which a timer is displayed,
the timer being configured to display a time relative to the
timeframe.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1 is representative of the appealed claims.3
Claim 1 is reproduced below with paragraph designators added for clarity
and emphasis added to the claim language that will be discussed as part of
our analysis of the purported abstract idea embodied in the claim:
1. A computer implemented method of providing an
electronic trading environment for a market participant, the
electronic trading environment facilitating compliance with a

3 Appellant argues all of the claims together as a group. See Appeal Br. 5–9.
Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-005949
Application 13/918,396

3
deadline for reporting an agreed-to price for a financial
instrument transaction, the method comprising:
[(a)] generating, at a display device of a computer in
communication with an exchange computer system via a
communication network, a first interface for the market
participant configured for entry of data indicative of the financial
instrument transaction, the first interface comprising a time field
for an execution time of the financial instrument transaction;
[(b)] capturing, with a processor of the computer, data
indicative of a timing at which the financial instrument
transaction is finalized based on the data entered via the first
interface, wherein capturing the data indicative of the timing
comprises recording a current time at which the financial
instrument transaction is finalized, and wherein recording the
current time is triggered by capture of transaction data via the
first interface such that the data indicative of the timing is
captured automatically;
[(c)] populating, by the processor of the computer
automatically, the time field for the execution time in accordance
with the captured data indicative of the timing at which the
financial instrument transaction is finalized;
[(d)] determining, with the processor of the computer, a
timeframe for reporting the agreed-to price of the financial
instrument transaction to the exchange computer system, the
timeframe being based on the deadline for reporting the agreed-
to price and the data indicative of the timing at which the
financial instrument transaction is finalized; and
[(e)] generating, at the display device, a second interface for the
market participant in which a timer is displayed, the timer being
configured to display a time relative to the timeframe to facilitate
the compliance with the deadline for the reporting of the agreed-
to price for the financial instrument transaction.

Appeal 2020-005949
Application 13/918,396

4
THE REJECTION
The Examiner finds that all of the claims are directed toward one of
the four categories of invention defined by 35 U.S.C. § 101. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner determines, inter alia, that the language of claim 1’s
limitation (d), “[d]etermining a price reporting timeframe [is a recitation of
an] abstract idea implemented using the computer and network as a tool for
implementation.” Final Act. 11.
The Examiner determines that the limitations of capturing and
displaying data are claimed and described at a high level of generality and
are functions any general-purpose computer would have performed such that
the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the
judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological
environment. Final Act. 8. The Examiner further finds that claim 1 also
recites the use of a processor, memory, and a network, but likewise
determines that these elements also are recited at a high level of generality
and constitute mere instructions to apply the recited judicial exception to a
particular technological environment. Id. The Examiner concludes that
claim 1, then, is directed to an abstract idea. Id.
The Examiner then determines that the claim language that pertains to
the additional elements merely entails relying on a computer to perform
routine tasks more quickly or accurately. Final Act. 11. The Examiner
concludes that the recited additional elements do not provide an inventive
concept that amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Id. at 12.
As such, the Examiner concludes that the claims are not patent
eligible as they are directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible subject
matter without reciting significantly more. Final Act. 9.
Appeal 2020-005949
Application 13/918,396

5
Appellant’s arguments are addressed in the Analysis section below.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A. SECTION 101
A. SECTION 101:
Inventions for a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter” generally constitute patent-eligible subject matter.
35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. 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. 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 Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66
(2012), and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–
77). 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
Appeal 2020-005949
Application 13/918,396

6
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.
252, 267–68 (1853))); 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
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 187; 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.”). Having said that, the Court
also indicated that a claim “seeking patent 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. at 191 (citing
Benson and Flook); see also, 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 (internal quotation marks
omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional
Appeal 2020-005949
Application 13/918,396

7
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.
B. USPTO SECTION 101 GUIDANCE
B. USPTO SECTION 101 GUIDANCE:
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. See
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Guidance”), updated by USPTO, October 2019
Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf) (“October 2019
Guidance Update”); see also October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance
Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55942 (Oct. 18, 2019) (notifying the public of the
availability of the October 2019 Guidance Update). “All USPTO personnel
are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the
guidance.” 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51; see also October 2019
Guidance Update at 1. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(“MPEP”) now incorporates this revised guidance and subsequent updates at
Section 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020).4
Under MPEP § 2106, we first look to whether the claim recites the
following:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing

4 All references to the MPEP are to the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019
(Last Revised June 2020), unless otherwise indicated.
Appeal 2020-005949
Application 13/918,396

8
human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application.5
MPEP §§ 2106.04(a), (d).
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 activity” in the field; or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality,
to the judicial exception.
MPEP § 2106.05(d).

ANALYSIS
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, we first look to
whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain
groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or
mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Limitation (d) of claim 1 recites, in part,
determining . . . a timeframe for reporting the agreed-to
price of the financial instrument transaction to the exchange

5 “Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by:
(1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim
beyond the judicial exception; and (2) evaluating those additional elements
individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole
integrates the exception into a practical application.” MPEP § 2106.04(d)II.
Appeal 2020-005949
Application 13/918,396

9
computer system, the timeframe being based on the deadline for
reporting the agreed-to price and the data indicative of the timing
at which the financial instrument transaction is finalized.
Appeal Br., Claim App’x 1.
Determining a reporting timeframe constitutes performing a
mathematical concept, such as determining a mathematical relationship or
performing a mathematical calculation. The 2019 Guidance expressly
recognizes mathematical relationships and calculations as constituting
patent-ineligible abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Determining a reporting timeframe for reporting the agreed-to price of
the financial instrument transaction to the exchange computer system
additionally constitutes a commercial or legal interaction, such as carrying
out a legal obligation. See Spec. ¶ 3 (“In some markets, Exchange rules
mandate the reporting of the leg prices within a given time period of
finalizing the block trade. Traders failing to report the pricing within the
time period are typically fined.”) Carrying out obligatory legal interactions
is a certain method of organizing human activities that the 2019 Guidance
expressly recognizes as constituting a patent-ineligible abstract idea. MPEP
§ 2106.04(a).
Determining a reporting timeframe also constitutes a mental process,
such as an evaluation or judgment that can be performed in the human mind.
The 2019 Guidance expressly recognizes such mental processes as
constituting patent-ineligible abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Accordingly, limitation (d) recites a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
Moreover, Appellant does not dispute that the claims recite an
abstract idea under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance. See Appeal
Br. 5–9 (wherein Appellant instead argues, for example, that the claims are
Appeal 2020-005949
Application 13/918,396

10
not directed to an abstract idea and that the recited judicial exception is
integrated into a practical application). We agree with the Examiner, then,
that limitation (d) recites a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject
matter under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze
whether claim 1 recites additional elements that individually or in
combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–55. The 2019 Guidance identifies
considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of
elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as
an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a
computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at
55; MPEP § 2106.05(a).
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:
Appellant argues that by characterizing the invention as “directed to
an abstract idea of facilitating compliance with a deadline for reporting an
agreed-to price for a financial instrument transaction,” the Examiner
disregards an important portion of the express language of the claims’
preambles, which recite “providing an electronic trading environment.”
Appeal Br. 5–6. Appellant argues that the claims, instead, “are directed to
providing an electronic trading environment that facilitates compliance with
a reporting deadline.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant argues that the claim 1 is
replete with limitations directed to aspects of an electronic trading
environment. Id. at 6 (citing language of claim 1’s limitations (a)–(c)
and (e)).
Appeal 2020-005949
Application 13/918,396

11
Appellant next argues that the Examiner has provided no rational in
support of the conclusion that the claimed invention is directed to a
fundamental economic practice. Appeal Br. 6–7.
Appellant also argues that the claimed methods and systems integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application. Appeal Br. 8–9.
According to Appellant,
The present claims recite a number of practical details
regarding the manner in which the electronic trading
environment provided by the claimed methods and systems
facilitates compliance with a reporting deadline. For instance,
. . . the claimed methods and systems require (i) recording a
current time at which the financial instrument transaction is
finalized, (ii) that recording a current time is triggered by capture
of transaction data via an interface, such that (iii) the data
indicative of the timing is captured automatically.
Id. (citing claim 1).
ANALYSIS:
In the preceding section, we addressed how limitation (d) recites
abstract ideas. Limitation (d) more fully recites that the abstract idea of
determining a timeframe for reporting the agreed-to price is performed “with
the processor of the computer.” Appeal Br., Claim App’x 1.
We agree with the Examiner that the mere recitation of a computer
processor constitutes a description of a computer at a high level performing
a generic computer function—making a determination. See Alice, 573 U.S.
at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,”
“communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer
components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract
idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of
generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not
Appeal 2020-005949
Application 13/918,396

12
be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a
practical application”).
As such, limitation (d)’s further requirement that the abstract idea be
carried out with “the processor of the computer” does not integrate abstract
idea into a practical application.
Turning to the other limitations of claim 1, limitation (a) recites,
generating, at a display device of a computer in
communication with an exchange computer system via a
communication network, a first interface for the market
participant configured for entry of data indicative of the financial
instrument transaction, the first interface comprising a time field
for an execution time of the financial instrument transaction;
Appeal Br., Claim App’x 1.
In short, limitation (a) sets forth a step of providing a networked
computer with a graphical user interface that displays a time field.
Graphical user interfaces have long been used to enable a computer user to
enter data into the computer system and to observe generated and displayed
data. And limitation (a) merely uses functional terms to recite the end result
of generating a first interface comprising a time field. As such, limitation (a)
“provide[s] no useful guidance as to how this purported function is achieved
and thus cannot be directed to a technological solution.” cxLoyalty, Inc. v.
Maritz Holdings Inc., 2021 WL 416719, 9 (citing Univ. of Fla. Res. Found.,
Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (holding
claims relating to format conversion ineligible where the “drivers [were]
described in purely functional terms” and the claims did not “explain[] how
the drivers do the conversion that [the patent owner] points to”)).
Instead, limitation (a) merely recites insignificant extra-solution
activity:
Appeal 2020-005949
Application 13/918,396

13
An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data
for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information
about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a
claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered
information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the
transactions were fraudulent.
MPEP § 2106.05(g) (emphasis added). For an example of insignificant post-
solution activity, see e.g., Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229,
1241–42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that printing or downloading generated
menus constituted insignificant extra-solution activity).
Because the courts have found that steps of gathering data, when
gathered for the purpose of analyzing and manipulating the gathered
information, constitutes insignificant pre-solution activity, and because steps
of displaying analyzed data constitute insignificant post-solution activity,
a fortiori the associated precursor step of initially providing the interface
that is then used to perform the insignificant extra-solution activity, itself
also constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity absent sufficient detail as
to how the interface is generated.
Limitation (b) recites a step of capturing data, which step comprises
recording the time of an event:
[C]apturing, with a processor of the computer, data
indicative of a timing at which the financial instrument
transaction is finalized based on the data entered via the first
interface, wherein capturing the data indicative of the timing
comprises recording a current time at which the financial
instrument transaction is finalized, and wherein recording the
current time is triggered by capture of transaction data via the
first interface such that the data indicative of the timing is
captured automatically;
Final Act.; Claims App’x 1.
Appeal 2020-005949
Application 13/918,396

14
Similar to limitation (a), limitation (b) likewise sets forth this data-
recording step purely in functional terms of what the triggering event is.
Furthermore, storing data is merely an insignificant intermediary step
between collecting data and displaying data, both of which courts have held
constitute insignificant extra-solution activity. See, e.g., FairWarning IP,
LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1097–98 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For the
reasons set forth above in relation to limitation (a), then, limitation (b) also
merely recites a step of insignificant extra-solution data capture and storage.
Limitation (c) recites a step of displaying the captured-and-stored data
on the user interface: “populating, by the processor of the computer
automatically, the time field for the execution time in accordance with the
captured data indicative of the timing at which the financial instrument
transaction is finalized.” But limitation (c), likewise, sets forth this data-
display step purely in functional terms of what the triggering event is. For
the reasons set forth above in relation to limitation (a), then, limitation (c)
also merely recites a step of insignificant extra-solution data gathering.
Limitation (e) recites a step of generating a second interface for
displaying a timer: “generating, at the display device, a second interface for
the market participant in which a timer is displayed, the timer being
configured to display a time relative to the timeframe to facilitate the
compliance with the deadline for the reporting of the agreed-to price for the
financial instrument transaction.” Appeal Br., Claim App’x 1. For the
reasons set forth in relation to limitation (a), limitation (e) also constitutes a
recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity.
In addition to the arguments outlined above, Appellant also argues
that the claimed methods and systems provide a technical solution to a
Appeal 2020-005949
Application 13/918,396

15
technical problem presented by electronic trading systems. Appeal Br. 7.
More particularly, Appellant argues,
The technical problem is that electronic trading systems
establish a computer-based, networked communication
arrangement for order entry. In that arrangement, market
participants are remotely located from an Exchange and the
exchange computer system. As a result, the electronic trading
system users may be unaware of when the deadline or timeframe
for reporting an agreed-to price will be exceeded.
Appeal Br. 7 (citing Spec. ¶ 9).
This argument is unpersuasive because the act of determining a
timeframe for reporting financial transactions entails the underlying recited
abstract idea. See BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since Alice that 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.”); 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.”)
(emphasis omitted); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract
application realm.”).
Moreover, our reviewing court has held, a claim that “focused on
providing information . . . in a way that helps [a human] process information
more quickly,” or analogously, with less ambiguity, does not recite some
manner of “improving computers or technology.” Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.
v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
For these reasons, Appellant does not persuade us that claim 1 is
directed to an improvement in the function of a computer or to any other
Appeal 2020-005949
Application 13/918,396

16
technology or technical field. MPEP § 2106.05(a). Nor does Appellant
persuasively demonstrate that claim 1 is directed to a particular machine or
transformation, or that claim 1 adds any other meaningful limitations for the
purposes of the analysis under Section 101. MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), (c), (e).
Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us that claim 1 integrates the
recited abstract ideas into a practical application within the meaning of the
2019 Guidance. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Step 2B
Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze whether
claim 1 adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that,
either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-
understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. 2019 Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:
Appellant argues, “[t]he claimed methods and systems do not merely
rely on a computer to perform routine tasks,” such as starting a timer,
creating a timestamp, or merely facilitating compliance with a reporting
deadline. Appeal Br. 8. According to Appellant, “the claimed methods and
systems determine a timeframe for reporting based on data indicative of
timing captured automatically.” Id. (citing claim 1). Appellant also argues,
“the present claims require that the data is captured automatically by a
current time recordation triggered by the capture of transaction data via the
interface.” Id. (citing claim 1). Appellant urges,
Such automatic, trigger-based time recordation is not, and never
was, a routine task, either before or after the advent of
computerized electronic trading. Indeed, such trigger-based
recordation cannot be done without the interface of the electronic
Appeal 2020-005949
Application 13/918,396

17
trading environment provided by the claimed methods and
systems. In other words, without the interface, there is no
triggered time recordation.
Id.
ANALYSIS:
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error because
Appellant does not explain why the additional elements are more than well
understood, routine, and conventional. Appellant’s arguments, instead,
merely entail a recitation of claim 1’s additional elements.
Moreover, Appellant’s Specification, by describing computer-related
components at a high level without details of structure or implementation,
indicates that the recited additional elements—e.g., the display device, the
first interface displaying a time field, the processor of the computer, and the
second interface displaying a timer—are well understood, routine, and
conventional:
The trading network environment shown in Figure 1 includes
exemplary computer devices 114, 116, 118, 120 and 122, which
depict different exemplary methods or media by which a
computer device may be coupled with the exchange computer
system 100 or by which a user may communicate, e.g. send and
receive trade or other information therewith. It will be
appreciated that the types of computer devices deployed by
traders and the methods and media by which they communicate
with the exchange computer system 100 is implementation
dependent and may vary and that not all of the depicted computer
devices and/or means/media of communications, now available
or later developed may be used. Each computer device, which
may include a computer 400 described in more detail below with
respect to Figure 4, may include a central processor that controls
the overall operation of the computer and a system bus that
connects the central processor to one or more conventional
components, such as a network card or mode. Each computer
Appeal 2020-005949
Application 13/918,396

18
device may also include a variety of interface units and drives for
reading and writing data or files and communication with other
computer device with the exchange computer system 100.
Depending on the type of computer device, a user can interact
with the computer with a keyboard, pointing device, microphone,
pen device, touchpad, touchscreen, or other input device now
available or later developed.
Spec. ¶ 21.
[T]he computer system 400 may include a processor 402,
a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit
(GPU), or both. The processor 402 may be a component in a
variety of systems. For example, the processor 402 may be part
of a standard personal computer or a workstation.
Spec. ¶ 63; see also id. ¶¶ 81–92 (describing the implementation of the trade
book interface 500 only in functional terms).
Furthermore, Appellant’s Specification does not indicate that
consideration of these conventional elements as an ordered combination
adds any significance beyond the additional elements, as considered
individually. Rather, Appellant’s Specification indicates that the invention
is directed to an abstract idea that is made more efficient with generic
computer components—determining a timeframe for reporting the agreed-to
price of the financial instrument transaction to the exchange. E.g., Spec.
¶¶ 3, 9, 10.
For these reasons, we determine that claim 1 does not recite additional
elements that, either individually or as an ordered combination, amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception within the meaning of the
2019 Guidance. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55; MPEP
§ 2106.05(d).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an exception to patent-eligible subject
Appeal 2020-005949
Application 13/918,396

19
matter without reciting significantly more. We, likewise, sustain the 101
rejection of claims 2–6, 8–14, and 16–22, which Appellant does not argue
separately. Appeal Br. 5–9.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–14,
16–22
101 Eligibility 1–6, 8–14,
16–22