D2L CORPORATIONDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 29, 20212021002457 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 13/832,553 03/15/2013 Kenneth CHAPMAN K8001235US 9002 34236 7590 12/29/2021 GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP 345 King Street West Suite 600 KITCHENER, ONTARIO N2G0C5 CANADA EXAMINER GILKEY, CARRIE STRODER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2021 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): JEFF.WONG@GOWLINGWLG.COM VAL.COTTRILL@GOWLINGWLG.COM Waterloo.IP@gowlingwlg.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KENNETH CHAPMAN __________________ Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and JAMES P. CALVE, 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 1–17, 19, and 20, which are all the pending claims.2 See Appeal Br. 1, 5. 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 D2L Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claim 18 is cancelled. See Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App). Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate to systems and methods for automating collection of information such as accreditation requirements. Spec. ¶¶ 5, 38. A common language or nomenclature is developed so all user content is designated with a single naming convention that conforms with the terminology used by an accreditation board. Id. ¶ 38. Then, user content can be reached using the common language and a list of designations based on accreditation board requirements to collect information for submission. Id. ¶¶ 40–43. Claims 1, 13, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 recites: 1. A method of collecting submission information in an academic institution comprising: obtaining one or more requirements for an accreditation board; determining one or more designations for use in a common language, wherein the one or more designations are determined based at least in part on the one or more requirements; developing the common language for all information within the academic institution, wherein the common language is developed based at least in part on the one or more designations, and wherein the common language comprises one or more keywords used to describe user content generated in connection with the one or more designations; applying the common language to one or more pieces of user content stored in a content database associated with a networked teaching environment, the content database stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium; searching, by a processor, the content database associated with the networked teaching environment and identifying, by the processor, the submission information for submission to the accreditation board from the pieces of user content, wherein the identified submission information is determined based at least in part on the one or more keywords respectively associated with the one or more designations; Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 3 retrieving, by the processor, the identified submission information; removing, by the processor, redundant or superfluous information from the identified submission information, wherein submission information is determined to be redundant or superfluous information based at least in part on the one or more keywords used to describe the pieces of user content; and sending the remaining submission information to the accreditation board. Appeal Br. 28 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS Claims 1–17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 13–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 13–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for being indefinite. Claims 1, 2, 7–11, 13–17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yaskin,3 Camarillo,4 and Brockway.5 Claims 3–6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yaskin, Camarillo, Brockway, and Waelti.6 Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yaskin, Camarillo, Brockway, and Palmer.7 3 US 2006/0241993 A1, published October 26, 2006. 4 US 2003/0041068 A1, published February 27, 2003. 5 US 2011/0093471 A1, published April 21, 2011, 2007. 6 US 2007/0282598 A1, published December 6, 2007. 7 US 2006/0149590 A1, published July 6, 2006. Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 4 ANALYSIS Eligibility of Claims 1–17, 19, and 20 Appellant argues the claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 12–18. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Regarding claim 1, the Examiner determines that steps of obtaining requirements, determining designations for use in a common language, developing the common language, applying the common language to information stored in a database, searching the database for identified information, retrieving the identified information, removing redundant information, and sending the remaining information recite mental processes that can be performed in the human mind but for reciting generic computer components. Final Act. 4. The Examiner also determines that developing a common language encompasses activities of a user thinking about the words to use to describe user content and the other limitations can be performed by a user manually searching a database or a filing cabinet of information. Id. The Examiner determines that the additional elements of a processor and a database are recited at a high level of generality as generic components that apply the abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Id. at 5. The Examiner also determines that these additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea to integrate it into a practical application. Id. The Examiner determines that “sending” and “retrieving” limitations may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Id. The Examiner also determines that applying the judicial exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept because the claims append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry. Id. Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 5 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 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 6 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. Step 1 We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites a method, which is a statutory category, namely, a process. See 35 U.S.C. § 101; Final Act. 4. 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 steps that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper and therefore fall within the mental processes category of abstract ideas. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; Final Act. 4; Ans. 3. By organizing records of human activity of an entity, claim 1 also recites certain methods of organizing human activity within the abstract idea category. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 The focus of claim 1 is on developing a common nomenclature (i.e., a “common language” of “keywords”) that is based on the requirements of an accreditation board and using that common language to index (“designate”) user content stored in a database so that the database can be searched for information to submit to the accreditation board using the keyword(s) of a single naming convention. See Spec. ¶¶ 1, 5, 8–10, 30, 33, 38, 40, 41. The title of the application reflects this focus as SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATING COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.” Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 7 Creating an index and using that index to search for and retrieve data in a database is activity that organizes and access records through creation of an index-searchable database. It “includes longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of computers and the Internet.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining “a hardcopy-based classification system (such as library indexing system) employs a similar concept as the one recited by the ’434 patent. There, classifiers organize and cross-reference information and resources (such as books, magazines, or the like) by certain identifiable tags, e.g., title, author, subject. Here, tags are similarly used to identify, organize, and locate the desired resource.”). Claim 1 here similarly develops a common language of keywords based on designations of accreditation requirements and applies the designations as tags to user content in a database so the content can be searched by keywords of the designations to retrieve desired information for submission to an accreditation board. The Specification indicates that new user content may be named and stored by using designations of the common language, and stored user content may be updated based on the designations of the common language so that the user content may be searched by using specific keywords of designations of the common language. Spec. ¶¶ 41, 43. The method is similar to other concepts that recite abstract ideas. For example, a method of indexing data into a database as parameterized items presented summary comparison information before users input data so they could compare parameters and values used to classify similar data into the database. BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he claim’s ‘focus’ is guiding database users by presenting summary comparison information to users before they input data.”). Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 8 The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained This is not a method “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of” wide access databases. . . . It amounts to having users consider previous item descriptions before they describe items to achieve more consistent item descriptions. Whether labeled as a fundamental, long-prevalent practice or a well-established method of organizing activity, this qualifies as an abstract idea. BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286 (citation omitted). Here, claim 1 applies a “common language” based on designations and comprising keywords used to describe user content generated based on one or more designations. Appeal Br. 28 (Claims App.). No technical details are recited for this process of applying the common language to user content. The Specification indicates only that user content is designated by using a single naming convention of terminology that reflects or parallels the terminology of an accreditation board so that simple key word searches may be used to obtain the information required for accreditation. Spec. ¶¶ 38, 41. Claim 1 is more abstract than the claims in Erie and BSG. Even if applying a common language to user content encompasses assigning designations and keywords to individual data items, such application merely indexes the user content similar to the tags, parameters and values in Erie without providing historical usage information to guide the application as in BSG. As such, it recites the abstract idea identified above. See also PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th 1310, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (using a content-based identifier for the claimed data-management functions of marking, retrieving, and delivering copies of data items recited mental processes that can be performed using a pencil and paper). Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 9 PersonalWeb held that “the use of a content-based identifier” was held to be abstract in Erie. Id. at 1316 (“There, we addressed claims to ‘search [a] database using an index,’ in which ‘every record in the database is associated with one or more descriptive terms’ organized using ‘category tags’ for ‘grouping of similar terms’ and ‘domain tags’ for ‘grouping of similar categories.’”) (quoting Erie, 850 F.3d at 1326). In Erie, the claims created an index by defining a plurality of XML tags including domain tags and category tags. Then, it created a metafile corresponding to a first domain tag and finally a database by providing plural records with each record having an XML index component. Erie, 850 F.3d at 1326. Similar claims to methods of classifying and storing data recited the abstract idea identified above. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner by attaching dates and times to the images is a method of organizing human activity); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (steps of collecting data, recognizing data in the collection, and storing recognized data recite steps humans always have performed to organize such data and activity); see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[S]electing 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.”). Here, claim 1 similarly collects accreditation requirements, extracts designations and develops a common language comprising keywords that are applied to user content to index it for subsequent searches to collect information. Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 10 Nor does searching the content database to identify submission information take claim 1 out of the abstract realm. Such functions can be performed as mental processes to search a database, retrieve submission information, remove redundant information, and send results of the search as submission information. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (obtaining information about credit card transactions can be performed by a human who simply reads records of Internet credit card transactions from a preexisting database even if physical steps are required (such as entering a query via a keyboard or a mouse) and making a map of the retrieved credit card numbers can be performed as a mental process by writing down a list of credit card transactions made from a particular IP address, and comparing the map of credit card numbers to Internet transactions can be performed entirely in the human mind as can the logical reasoning to identify different user names and billing addresses using the same IP address); West View Research, LLC v. Audi AG, 685 F. App’x 923, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“These claims do not go beyond receiving or collecting data queries, analyzing the data query, retrieving and processing the information constituting a response to the initial data query, and generating a visual or audio response to the initial data query.”). Without more, filtering data this way involves the same abstract idea. See BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (filtering content retrieved from a network is a longstanding, well-known method of organizing human behavior); Braemer Mfg., LLC v. ScottCare Corp., 816 F. App’x 465, 470 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (collecting, classifying, and filtering data to determine a measure of merit is no more than a mental process that is performable in the human mind). Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 11 Appellant argues that the Office Action has not articulated the specific abstract idea to which the claims are directed or how such abstract idea is similar to any concept that the courts have identified as an abstract idea. See Appeal Br. 13. Appellant also argues that the identified alleged abstract idea is not similar to any of the concepts that courts have identified as an abstract idea and is directed to an improvement to computer-related technology by applying a common language to submit information to an accreditation board. Id. at 13–14. The Examiner identified the claimed steps of obtaining requirements, determining designations using a common language, developing a common language, applying the common language to database information, searching the database for and retrieving identified information, removing redundant information, and sending the remaining information as reciting a method that can be performed in the human mind as mental processes. Final Act. 4, 28. Mental processes are a category of abstract idea as indicated by the decisions discussed above and the Revised Guidance. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Those decisions also held that claims to such mental processes recited certain methods of organizing human activity as an abstract idea. Appellant also argues that applying a common language by applying keywords to define user data changes the data and can’t be accomplished by human thought processes. In Erie, a method of creating an index-searchable database involved longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of computers and the Internet such as by human classifiers organizing and cross-referencing information and resources in a system by applying tags (title, author, subject) to books and magazines to classify data by identifying, organizing, and locating a desired data resource. Erie, 850 F.3d at 1327. Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 12 Human classifiers have applied a common language of tags to content items to classify the items as mental processes. See id.; see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1339–40 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (organizing documents as data objects by primary record types (PRTs) and management record types (MRTs) is an abstract idea); TLI, 823 F.3d at 611, 613 (claims drawn to classifying an image and storing the image based on its classification recited the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner as a method of organizing human activity by attaching classification data such as dates and times to images in order to store the images in an organized manner). Such classification also recites a method of organizing human activity. See Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F. App’x 988, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (using categories to organize, store, and transmit data is a well-known concept of categorical data storage that collects information in classified form and then separates and transmits it according to its classification). A common language of designations and keywords tags user content with an identifier or label. It does not change its character as data. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353 (“Information as such is an intangible”; “collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), [i]s within the realm of abstract ideas.”). User content is labelled. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d at 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“That the parser transforms data from source to object code does not demonstrate non-abstractness without evidence that this transformation improves computer functionality in some way.”). Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 recites the abstract idea identified above. Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 13 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 the generic processor, database, and networked teaching environment are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer environment without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. See Final Act. 5. A generic application of the abstract idea does not improve computer technology, use a particular machine that is integral to the claim, or transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The Specification describes the processor and database generically as components that perform steps of the abstract idea. The database stores the information that is required for automated collection. Spec. ¶ 46. Similarly, the processor may have pre-stored instructions used to identify the required submission information, or it may be provided with instructions for the type of user content to collect or retrieve. Id. ¶ 47. Appellant argues that claim 1 of Example 42 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, issued January 7, 2019 (the “PEG Examples”), indicates that the claims here are integrated into a practical application because they convert content lacking a consistent nomenclature into a state having a consistent nomenclature to solve a technical problem of user content not being readily identified as pertaining to a particular accreditation requirement. Appeal Br. 14–15. Appellant asserts that the “networked teaching environment” is an improved technology. Id. at 15. Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 14 Example 42 includes a method for transmission of notifications when medical records are updated. PEG Examples, 17. Claim 1 of Example 42 is a method of storing patient medical information in records in standardized format, providing remote access to users over a network so the users can update the information about a patient’s condition by providing information in a non-standardized format that is converted to the standardized format and stored and wherein a message is generated automatically with the updated information about the patient’s condition and sent to users over the network. Id. at 18. The combination of additional elements of storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information to a standardized format, automatically generating a message, and transmitting the message to users recited a specific improvement over the prior art. Id. Here, claim 1 recites no comparable features of allowing remote users to submit data over a network, converting the data to a standardized format, or then generating and transmitting a message to the users when updated information about a patient’s condition is received, converted, and stored. As discussed above under Prong One, the features relied upon for an integration are features of the abstract idea. They cannot provide additional elements that integrate that abstract idea into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.24 (the term “additional elements” is used to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in a claim beyond the identified judicial exception); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (a claim that recites an abstract idea must include additional features to ensure it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (same). Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 15 Even if we consider these features as additional elements, they merely recite result-based activities without any technical implementation details. As such, “the claims here do not ‘ha[ve] the specificity required to transform a claim from one claiming only a result to one claiming a way of achieving it.’” Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Merely claiming ‘those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance,’ does not make a claim eligible at step one.”) (citations omitted)); see SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167–68 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (to be eligible, a claim must have the specificity that transforms it from one claiming only a result to one claiming a way of achieving the result); Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology but software-based inventions that do not pass § 101 muster fail because “they did not recite any assertedly inventive technology for improving computers as tools and/or because the elements of the asserted invention were so result-based that they amounted to patenting the patent- ineligible concept itself”); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1356 (the essentially result-focused, functional character of the claim language at issue is a frequent feature of claims that are held to be ineligible under § 101). Even if the Specification describes improvements for this process, no details are claimed. See Ericsson Inc. F.3d 1317, 1325 (“[T]he specification may be ‘helpful in illuminating what a claim is directed to . . . [but] the specification must always yield to the claim language’ when identifying the ‘true focus of a claim.’”). Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 16 Appellant also asserts that the conventional method for collecting submission information did not involve creating and applying a common language as claimed. Appeal Br. 15. “The ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188– 89, (1981); SAP, 898 F.3d at 1163 (“Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that the claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.”); 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. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”). Appellant also asserts that removing a portion of the redundant data from the submission information based on the keywords of the common languages changes the submission information and provides for a technical improvement that is more than a mental process. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant argues that it provides a practical solution to user content being designated in a manner that is inconsistent with the requirements of the accreditation board that may cause user content to be duplicated. Id. at 16–17. The Specification indicates only that “the system aims to create a common language, or nomenclature between the different departments and the requirements of the accreditation board so that the collected information may be quickly reviewed and the number of duplicates may be reduced or eliminated.” Spec. ¶ 30; see Appeal Br. 7 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 29, 30 as support for the step of removing redundant or superfluous information). Technical details are not described (or claimed) for this process, however. Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 17 A person can review retrieved information to identify items of the retrieved information that are duplicates and remove the duplicates from the identified submission information before it is sent to an accreditation board. See PersonalWeb, 8 F.4th at 1317 (determining whether a received content identifier matches a characteristic of another identifier is a mental process and marking data for deletion is another way to classify data, which is an abstract mental process); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining whether a received content identifier matches a characteristic of other identifiers is a mental process that people have long performed on received paper mail to discard letters without opening them based on characteristics of the mail that can be kept in a person’s head). Essentially, this step filters out redundant information from retrieved content. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 711 F. App’x 1012, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“We have found the idea of performing a search to ferret out sources of unwanted material ‘based on characteristics’ of the source to be directed to an abstract idea.”) (citing Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1314); see also BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1348 (“The claims do not merely recite the abstract idea of filtering content along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet, or to perform it on a set of generic computer components. Such claims would not contain an inventive concept.”); Braemer, 816 F. App’x at 468, 470 (categorizing events is nothing more than matching characteristics to predefined categories, and discarding information of a second subset of events that fail to meet a merit criterion requires nothing more than generic data manipulation and basic data processing that merely collect, classify, and filter data). Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 18 The claimed method largely automates manual steps that otherwise would be performed by a person using mental processes. The Specification indicates that the information to be submitted for accreditation typically is collected and reviewed by individuals who collect and compile submissions. Spec. ¶ 30. The individuals may have to review multiple copies of the same document due to the different naming conventions between departments, which is a time-consuming process that may cause delays. Id. The claimed method simply creates a “common language” or “nomenclature” to apply to the documents and information of different departments using requirements of an accreditation board. Id. As discussed under Prong One, providing a common index of tags or identifiers to classify documents or information of a system such as a library classification system is longstanding conduct that people always have performed as mental processes to organize and classify this information and activity. The claims recite no technical improvements to computers, software, or other technology that are used to develop or apply a common language beyond the abstract idea identified under Prong One. Without more, automation of a manual process does not improve technology. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (“Using a computer to create and maintain ‘shadow’ accounts amounts to electronic recordkeeping—one of the most basic functions of a computer.”); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“At best, the claims describe the automation of the fundamental economic concept of offer-based price optimization through the use of generic computer functions.”); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (configuring generic computers to supplant and enhance an abstract manual process is the sort of invention that is ineligible for patenting). Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 19 “[R]elying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OIP, 788 F.3d at 1363; see also Mortg. Application Techs., LLC v. MeridianLink, Inc., 839 F. App’x 520, 526 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“We have previously held that a process that can be and has been performed by humans without the use of a computer, as the prosecution history shows here, is an abstract idea. . . . We have further held that information storage and exchange is an abstract idea even when it uses computers as a tool or is limited to a particular techno- logical environment. . . . The mere automation of the exchange and storage of information does not render the claims any less abstract.”). Appellant argues that converting user content to have designations in the common language transforms the content to a different, standardized format to solve the technical problem of user content in a database not being readily identifiable as pertaining to a particular accreditation requirement. Appeal Br. 14–15. However, no improvement to computer functionality occurs. See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1367 (“That the parser transforms data from source to object code does not demonstrate non-abstractness without evidence that this transformation improves computer functionality in some way.”); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (“Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information––to provide a ‘humanly comprehensible’ amount of information useful to users . . . does not transform the otherwise abstract processes of information collection and analysis.”); CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“The mere manipulation or reorganization of data, however, does not satisfy the transformation prong.”). Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 lacks additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 20 Alice, Step Two 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 limitations involve more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities known in the industry. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d at 1367. Individually, a “processor,” “content database,” and “networked teaching environment” are conventional computers and components. Their description in the Specification indicates they are sufficiently well-known that the particulars of their structure and functionality do not need to be described. See Memorandum, Subject: Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.), dated April 19, 2018. As an ordered combination, they recite no more than when they are considered individually. See 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.”). Using a common language of “designations” and “keywords” to label user content in a database so it is more accessible in some abstract way does not provide an inventive concept. See Cap. One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d at 1341 (“Although these data structures [PRTs and MRTs] add a degree of particularity to the claims, the underlying concept . . . merely encompasses the abstract idea of organizing, displaying, and manipulating data of particular documents.”); Erie, 850 F.3d at 1328 (an index of XML tags used to locate data in a database is not patent-eligible). Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 21 As our reviewing court explained in Erie: The patent admits that an index is simply “a guide that is used to locate information stored in a database.” . . . Furthermore, we fail to see how the patentee’s use of a well-known tag, i.e., XML tag —to form an index—sufficiently transforms the claims into a patent eligible invention. While limiting the index to XML tags certainly narrows the scope of the claims, in this instance, it is simply akin to limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post solution components that do not convert the otherwise ineligible concept into an inventive concept. . . . Similarly, the metafiles associated with these tags do not transform the claim into something beyond a conventional computer practice for facilitating searches. Indeed, the ’434 patent describes these metafiles as mere indicators that provide additional information about the tags hierarchical structure in the index. Id. at col. 2 ll. 60–62. The use of metafiles to build the claimed index is yet another natural consequence of carrying out the abstract idea in a computing environment and is, therefore, also insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. In this case, the claims do not sufficiently recite how the inclusion of XML tags or metadata leads to an improvement in computer database technology through some “non-conventional and nongeneric arrangement of known, conventional pieces.” Erie, 850 F.3d at 1328–29. The Specification indicates that applying the common language to new user content that is stored in the database “is straight forward.” Spec. ¶ 41. For all previously-stored user content, updating is done “to reflect the common language.” Id. No technical details are described or claimed. See Personal Web, 8 F.4th at 1318 (the purported improvements just restate the abstract idea of using a content-based identifier to access and retrieve data and maintain a desired level of redundancy of data items by storing only one copy of a data item, which, even if unconventional, “[t]hat is all abstract.”). Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 22 Even if the techniques are groundbreaking, innovative, or brilliant, that is not enough for eligibility. SAP, 898 F.3d at 1163 (“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.”). Here, any advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract realm. As illustrated by Erie, TLI, Capital One, and Berkheimer, a common language of tags, metafiles, PRTs, MRTs, and labels that is used to classify and store information in an organized manner so it can be retrieved more easily is a conventional practice that classifiers use to classify and index information. See Bozeman, 955 F.3d at 980–81 (using well-known computer components to collect, analyze, and present data, and send notifications is a logical sequence with no inventive concept); BSG, 899 F.3d at 1291 (alleged unconventional feature of guiding data entry in a database using summary comparison usage information is an abstract idea); Inventor Holdings, 876 F.3d at 1378 (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display and transmission amounts to instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer technology with no inventive concept); Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d at 1339 (“The claim uses a conventional ordering of steps– –first processing the data, then routing it, controlling it, and monitoring its reception––with conventional technology to achieve its desired result.”); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (using off-the-shelf conventional computer, network, and display technology to gather, analyze, and display data is not inventive). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–17, 19, and 20 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 23 Written Description Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 13–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failing to comply with the written description. Specifically, the Examiner determines that there is an insufficient written description of how the processor determines designations in a common language based on requirements and keywords for the common language to describe content generated in connection with the designations as recited in claims 13 and 17. Final Act. 7–8. The Examiner determines that the Specification does not describe how the processor makes the determinations or develops the common language beyond reviewing the requirements and terminology of an accreditation board without indicating how the assessment is performed or how it is programmed into a computer. Appellant responds that a skilled artisan would understand in light of the Specification that the method developed a nomenclature of keywords to apply to content and documents as a common language. Appeal Br. 18–19. The Specification describes the common language being developed as a “nomenclature” that provides a “single naming convention” for content. Spec. ¶ 38. It is developed by reviewing requirements of an accreditation board to identify terminology for the user content that is stored in the search framework to reflect or be parallel with the terminology of the accreditation board. Id. ¶¶ 38, 40. A list of designations is created to use in the common language based on the accreditation board requirements, and the common language may include a list of synonyms between the list of designations and the information stored in the user content system. Id. ¶ 40. Searches then may be performed using specific keywords of the common language and its list of designations to locate relevant information. Id. ¶ 43. Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 24 A skilled artisan would understand that the common language is a set of terms or labels derived from accreditation requirements and applied to user content of an organization to organize and classify its information. It also provides an index to retrieve information by labelling information with designations and keywords that correspond to accreditation requirements. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 13–17 for lack of written description. Indefiniteness of Claims 13–17 The Examiner determines that claims 13–17 are indefinite because the Specification does not describe an algorithm for developing a common language. Final Act. 9–10. The Examiner determines that the references to a general purpose computer do not provide sufficient detail of corresponding structure or a means to accomplish the software claimed functions. Id. at 10. Appellant responds that the Specification describes a set of modules used to perform steps of the claims with instructions to do so and describes how to perform the method in paragraphs 38 and 40–45. Appeal Br. 19–20. The Specification describes a method of processing data to develop a common language that is applied to user content as a list of designations, synonyms, and keywords that can be used to retrieve desired information. Figure 2 of the written description illustrates a flowchart of this process. The accompanying description describes how the computer and instructions develop a common language and use its keywords to retrieve information. Spec. ¶¶ 38–45. The claims do not recite a means plus function limitation format that would require a special purpose computer. See Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 13–17 for indefiniteness. Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 25 Claims 1, 2, 7–11, and 13–17 Rejected Over Yaskin, Camarillo, and Brockway The Examiner relies on Yaskin to teach obtaining requirements for an accreditation board, determining designations for use in a common language, and developing the common language based in the designations to comprise keywords that describe user content as recited in each of independent claims 1, 11, and 13. Final Act. 11–12, 18–19, 23. The Examiner cites Camarillo to teach a system that creates and maintains data records and Brockway to teach removing redundant/superfluous information. Id. at 13–15, 20–22, 23. Appellant argues that the cited portions of Yaskin describe how a user can create a course objective and use the defined objectives for an entirely different course, but Yaskin does not develop a common language based on designations with keywords generated in connection with the designations as claimed. Appeal Br. 20–21. Appellant argues that Brockway teaches how to handle electronic documents and tags documents as “irrelevant” when the document is not relevant to a particular discovery request because it does not meet the requirements for a discovery request rather than because it is a duplicate or redundant document as claimed. Id. at 22–23. We agree. Yaskin allows users to select standards of an accreditation council to use for learning objectives. Yaskin ¶ 92. Yaskin also allows users to define course objectives and course attributes such as the objective name, location, category, and rubric to measure the objective. Id. ¶ 100. Yet, the Examiner does not explain how developing a learning objective for an individual course based on an accreditation requirement also teaches or suggests the development of a common language for all information in an academic institution that is stored in a database as claimed. Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 26 The purpose of the claimed common language is to provide a common language or nomenclature across all user information and documents stored in databases of an academic institution so information can be searched and retrieved by a set of keywords of the common language. Spec. ¶¶ 28–30. Yaskin allows users to establish learning objectives in connection with external accreditation standards but does not teach or suggest developing a common language to be applied to all information as claimed. Brockway’s teaching to exclude “irrelevant” documents does not teach the step of removing redundant or superfluous information from the submission information that is retrieved by the keywords of a common language as recited in all claims. The Examiner explains that superfluous information is unnecessary or not needed and irrelevant documents may be considered something that is unnecessary or not needed as Brockway teaches. Ans. 9. The Specification indicates that the use of a common language or nomenclature should reduce the number of duplicates that are collected. Spec. ¶ 30. In the context of the Specification superfluous information is information that is not needed because it duplicates other information already obtained or adds nothing additional of value to what has been retrieved. Irrelevant documents that are excluded from a list of documents responsive to a discovery request may not be considered to be “redundant” or “superfluous” to information to be submitted in response to the discovery request or other submitted information. Indeed, the irrelevant document would not correspond to any other document in the information to be submitted in response to the discovery request. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7–11, 13– 17, and 19. Appeal 2021-002457 Application 13/832,553 27 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–17, 19, 20 101 Eligibility 1–17, 19, 20 13–17 112, ¶ 1 Written Description 13–17 13–17 112, ¶ 2 Indefiniteness 13–17 1, 2, 7–11, 13–17, 19 103(a) Yaskin, Camarillo, Brockway 1, 2, 7–11, 13–17, 19 3–6, 12 103 Yaskin, Camarillo, Brockway, Waelti 3–6, 12 20 103 Yaskin, Camarillo, Brockway, Palmer 20 Overall Outcome 1–17, 19, 20 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation