Edward W. Fordyce et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 6, 2019

14458754 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 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.
14/458,754 08/13/2014 Edward W. Fordyce 8223-1706934 3562
144885 7590 09/06/2019
The Webb Law Firm / Visa International
ONE GATEWAY CENTER
420 FT. DUQUESNE BLVD, SUITE 1200
PITTSBURGH, PA 15222
EXAMINER
TOKARCZYK, CHRISTOPHER B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/06/2019 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):
patents@webblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte EDWARD W. FORDYCE, LEIGH AMARO,
MICHELLE ENG WINTERS, NURTEKIN SAVAS,
CHARLES RAYMOND BYCE, and RYAN HAGEY1
________________

Appeal 2017-010904
Application 14/458,754
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–20. App. Br. 3–12. Claims 1–20 stand rejected
on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting (Final Action mailed
Sept. 1, 2016 (“Final Act.”) at 2–4) and under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter (Final Act. 5–8).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We review the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in

1 Appellants identify Visa International Service Association as the real party
in interest. Appeal Brief filed February 1, 2017 (“App. Br.”) 2.
Appeal 2017-010904
Application 14/458,754
2
light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellants describe the present invention as “relat[ing] to user
tracking, the processing of transaction data, such as records of payments
made via credit cards, debit cards, prepaid cards, etc., and/or providing
information based on the processing of the transaction data.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Appellants describe the invention in more detail as follows:
A system includes a transaction handler to process
transactions, a data warehouse to store transaction data recording
the transactions processed at the transaction handler and to store
mapping data between first user identifiers[, such as identifiers
stored in web-browser cookies,] and first account identifiers, a
profile generator to generate a profile of a user based on the
transaction data, and a portal coupled to the transaction handler
to receive a query identifying a second user identifier used by the
first tracker to track online activities of a user. The system is to
identify a second account identifier of the user from the second
user identifier based on the mapping data between the first user
identifiers and the first account identifiers to facilitate targeted
advertising using the profile of the user and/or to provide
information about certain transactions of the user related to a
previously presented advertisement.
Abstract; see also Spec. ¶ 223.
Independent claim 1 illustrates the claimed invention. It is reproduced
below with formatting modified for clarity and emphasis added to indicate
the portion of the claim that recites abstract ideas:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
[i] providing a computing device including
Appeal 2017-010904
Application 14/458,754
3
[a] a transaction handler configured in an electronic payment
processing network, the electronic payment processing network
connecting separate computers, including:
transaction terminals configured to initiate payment
transactions in the electronic payment processing network using
account information identifying payment accounts from which
the payments are made;
first computers controlling the payment accounts;
second computers controlling merchant accounts in which
the payments are received via the electronic payment processing
network; and
the transaction handler connecting the first computers and
the second computers;
[b] a data warehouse storing transaction data recording the
payment transactions processed by the transaction handler in the
electronic payment processing network; and
[c] a portal coupled with the data warehouse to communicate
with computing systems, including:
a user tracking system configured to track first online
activities of users and generate first user data identifying the first
online activities, wherein the first user data identifies the users
using anonymous user identifiers;
an online payment site configured to track second online
activities of the users and generate second user data identifying
the second online activities, wherein the second user data
identifies the users using account identifiers and [wherein]
transactions generated using the account identifiers are processed
via the transaction handler; and
a remote computer;
[ii] receiving, via the portal of the computing device and from
the user tracking system, the first user data;
[iii] storing, in the data warehouse, the first user data;
[iv] receiving, via the portal of the computing device and from
the online payment site, second user data;
Appeal 2017-010904
Application 14/458,754
4
[v] storing, in the data warehouse, the second user data;
[vi] generating, by the computing device, a mapping from the
anonymous user identifiers identified in the first user data to the
account identifiers identified in the second user data by:
[a] matching, by the computing device, the first online
activities identified in the first user data and the second online
activities identified in the second user data;
[vii] storing, in the computing device, mapping data identifying
the mapping from the anonymous user identifiers to the account
identifiers;
[viii] receiving, in the computing device via the portal over a
computer network from the remote computer and after the
mapping data is stored in the computing device, a query
identifying a first user identifier in the user identifiers;
[ix] determining, by the computing device, a first account
identifier in the account identifiers, based on the mapping data
and the first user identifier;
[x] generating, by the computing device, a transaction profile
from transactions identified from the transaction data using the
first account identifier; and
[xi] transmitting, by the computing device via the portal to the
remote computer over the computer network, the transaction
profile as a response to the query, wherein the transaction profile
is used by the remote computer to perform an operation for a user
identified by the first account identifier.

THE PATENT-INELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER REJECTION2
The Rejection and Contentions
The Examiner determines that claim 1 is directed to the abstract ideas
of “comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify

2 Appellants argue claims 1–20 together as a group. See App. Br. 3–12;
Reply Br. 2–12. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as
representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2017-010904
Application 14/458,754
5
options,” as well as mathematical operations and calculations. Final Act. 6.
The Examiner further determines that “[t]he claimed invention does not
include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception.” Id. at 7.
Appellants argue that the Examiner overgeneralized and
oversimplified the claims in determining that the claims are directed to an
abstract idea. App. Br. 8. Appellants argue that “[t]he Office Action failed
to consider the improvement of the claimed invention in the computer-
related information technology.” Id. Appellants argue that “the character of
the claims ‘as a whole’, considered in light of the specification, is [not]
‘directed to’ the abstract idea of ‘comparing new and stored information and
using rules to identify options’.” Id. at 7.
Appellants contend that the claimed invention provides “a particular
solution to a problem’ and a ‘particular way to achieve a desired outcome’.”
Id. at 10. According to Appellants,
The claimed invention provides the particular solution of
matching the common portions of user data tracked by an online
anonymous user tracker and an online payment site to establish
the linkage between an anonymous user identifier and a payment
account identifier such that a profile of payment transactions
made using a specific account identifier can be generated and
provided to a remote computing that makes a query using the
anonymous user identifier.
Id.
Principles of Law
A. SECTION 101:
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
Appeal 2017-010904
Application 14/458,754
6
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. 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
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 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
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
Supreme Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
Appeal 2017-010904
Application 14/458,754
7
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 Supreme 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. (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 (citation 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. (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:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) recently
published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO,
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84. Fed. Reg. 50
Appeal 2017-010904
Application 14/458,754
8
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Guidance”). Under the 2019 Guidance, 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
human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52–55.
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, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); 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.
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Limitation [i] of claim 1 recites a computer implemented method that
comprises providing a computing device that includes a transaction handler
within an electronic payment processing network. App. Br. 13. The
payment processing network connects separate computers. Id.
Limitation [1.a] further sets forth that the transaction handler includes
transaction terminals, first computers, and second computers. Id.
Appeal 2017-010904
Application 14/458,754
9
The transaction terminals are “configured to initiate payment
transactions in the electronic payment processing network using account
information identifying payment accounts from which the payments are
made.” Id. (emphasis added). The first computers provide the functionality
of “controlling the payment accounts.” Id. (emphasis added). The second
computers provide the functionality of “controlling merchant accounts in
which the payments are received via the electronic payment processing
network.” Id. (emphasis added).
As such, limitation [i.a] reasonably can be characterized as reciting a
step of providing components that perform commercial interactions
including advertising, marketing and sales behaviors. These types of
commercial interactions constitute certain methods of organizing human
activity that are recognized by the 2019 Guidance as constituting abstract
ideas.
Limitation [i.b] recites a data warehouse “storing transaction data
recording the payment transactions processed by the transaction handler in
the electronic payment processing network.” Id. at 13 (emphasis added).
The emphasized portion of the limitation reads on storing data through a
manual process—recording payment transactions. Manually storing this sort
of data constitutes a mental process that can be carried out either in the
human mind (e.g., in the form of noting an observation) or with the aid of a
pencil and paper. Such mental processes constitute another category of
abstract ideas that is recognized by the 2019 Guidance. 84 Fed. Reg. 52.
Like limitation [1.b], limitations [iii], [v], and [vii] also recite steps of
storing various types of data. App. Br. 14. As such, these limitations also
Appeal 2017-010904
Application 14/458,754
10
reasonably can be characterized as reciting an abstract idea that is
recognized by the 2019 Guidance.
Limitation [1.c] recites a portal coupled to the warehouse, the portal
including:
a user tracking system configured to track first online
activities of users and generate first user data identifying the first
online activities, wherein the first user data identifies the users
using anonymous user identifiers;
an online payment site configured to track second online
activities of the users and generate second user data identifying
the second online activities, wherein the second user data
identifies the users using account identifiers and [wherein]
transactions generated using the account identifiers are processed
via the transaction handler[.]
App. Br. 13 (emphasis added).
Tracking data, as claimed, reasonably may be characterized as a
mental process (such as an observation) that can be carried out in the human
mind. Similarly, generating data, as claimed, also reasonably can be
characterized as a mental process (such as an evaluation, judgment, or
opinion) that can be carried out in the human mind or with the aid of pencil
and paper. As such, limitation [i.c] reasonably can be characterized as
reciting abstract ideas that are recognized by the 2019 Guidance.
Like limitation [i.c], limitations [vi], [ix], and [x] also recite acts that
reasonably can be characterized as undertaking mental evaluations or
judgments. Limitation [vi] recites generating a mapping of identifiers. Id. at
14. Limitation [ix] recites determining a first account identifier based on
various data. Id. And limitation [x] recites generating a transaction profile
from various data. Id. As such, limitations [vi], [ix], and [x] reasonably can
Appeal 2017-010904
Application 14/458,754
11
be characterized as reciting abstract ideas that are recognized by the 2019
Guidance.
Limitation [ii] recites “receiving . . . the first user data.” Receiving
data reasonably can be characterized as managing personal interactions
between people, such as for the purpose of teaching or learning. Managing
personal interactions between people constitutes a certain method of
organizing human activity that the 2019 Guidance expressly recognizes as
constituting an abstract idea. Accordingly, limitation [ii] reasonably can be
characterized as reciting a recognized abstract idea.
Limitations [iv] and [viii] also recite steps of receiving various types
of data. App. Br. 14. Like limitation [ii], then, limitations [iv] and [viii]
also reasonably can be characterized as reciting abstract ideas.
Limitation [xi] recites “transmitting . . . the transaction profile as a
response to a query.” Id. Like the act of receiving data, the act of
transmitting data reasonably can be characterized as managing personal
interactions between people, such as for the purpose of teaching. Like
limitations [ii], [iv], and [viii], then, limitation [xi] reasonably can be
characterized as reciting a recognized abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The steps of receiving data, as recited in limitations [ii], [iv], and [vii],
also reasonably can be characterized alternatively as merely constituting
insignificant pre-solution activity:
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
Appeal 2017-010904
Application 14/458,754
12
information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the
transactions were fraudulent.
MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 1’s final step, limitation [xi], recites “transmitting the
transaction profile.” Similar to limitations [ii], [iv], and [vii], limitation [xi]
does not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because
limitation [xi] reasonably may be characterized as merely being directed to
the insignificant post-solution activity of transmitting data. 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).
Aside from the extra-solution activities of receiving, storing, and
transmitting data, claim 1 sets forth three additional steps:
limitation [vi]—generating a mapping from the anonymous user
identifiers identified in the first user data to the account identifiers identified
in the second user data by matching the first online activities identified in the
first user data and the second online activities identified in the second user
data;
limitation [ix]—determining a first account identifier in the account
identifiers based on the mapping data and the first user identifier; and
limitation [x]—generating a transaction profile from the transactions
identified from the transaction data using the first account identifier.
It is these limitations upon which Appellants primarily focus their
argument that the invention, viewed as a whole, “provides a novel
information retrieval system having a functionality not found in prior art,
which amounts to an improvement in a computer-related information
technology”:
Appeal 2017-010904
Application 14/458,754
13
The system is configured to receive, in the portal, first user
tracking data from the user tracking system that has anonymous
user identifiers and second user tracking data from the online
payment site that has account identifiers, and match the first and
second user tracking data to generate a mapping from the
anonymous user identifiers to the account identifiers. Using the
mapping data, the system can receive in the portal a query from
the remote computer, convert the anonymous user identifier
identified in the query to a corresponding account identifier,
generate a transaction profile from transactions identified using
the account identifier, and transmit the transaction profile to the
remote computer as a response to the query.
App. Br. 4.
Appellants also emphasize various components and actions of claim 1
that purportedly cause the claim to be directed to an improvement in
computer-related information technology. Id. at 4–6. More specifically,
Appellants point out that limitation [vi] recites generating a mapping from
the anonymous user identifiers identified in the first and second user data.
Id. at 5.
This argument is unpersuasive because generating the claimed
mapping entails one of the recited abstract ideas—a mental process. “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.” BSG Tech LLC
v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “[A] claim for a
new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor
Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis omitted).
“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application
realm.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168
(Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appeal 2017-010904
Application 14/458,754
14
Appellants additionally point out that limitation [vi] further recites
that the mapping is performed by “matching, by the computing device, the
first online activities identified in the first user data and the second online
activities identified in the second user data.” App. Br. 5 (emphasis omitted).
This argument also is unpersuasive. Like “mapping,” matching activities
identified in sets of data constitutes an abstract idea, as explained above.
The only additional element in limitation [vi] beyond the abstract idea
is that the abstract idea is performed “by the computing device.” But
matching or comparing data is exactly what computers routinely have been
used to do since the advent of computers. Relying on a “processor” to
“perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to
render a claim patent eligible.” OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com. L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (distinguishing a
claimed solution necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to
overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks
from claims that “merely recite the performance of some business practice
known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it
on the Internet”).
Appellants emphasize that limitation [i] recites “a transaction handler
configured in an electronic payment processing network,” “a data warehouse
storing transaction data recording the payment transactions processed by the
transaction handler in the electronic payment processing network,” and “a
portal coupled with the data warehouse to communicate with computing
systems.” App. Br. 4–5 (emphasis omitted). Appellants also emphasize that
the claimed portal includes “a user tracking system” that tracks data using
Appeal 2017-010904
Application 14/458,754
15
“anonymous user identifiers” and an “online payment site” that tracks online
activities using “account identifiers.” Id. at 5 (emphasis omitted).
Appellants’ emphasizing these portions of limitation [i] does not
persuade us that claim 1, as a whole, improves the functioning of a computer
or information technology. Id. Appellants provide insufficient evidence that
the terms like “transaction handler” define any particular computing
elements or arrangement of elements, much less that such elements possess
any improvements to computing elements. Rather, the recited “transaction
handler,” “payment processing network,” “data warehouse,” “portal,”
“computing systems,” “user tracking system,” and “online payment site”
appear to be computer components that carry out the recited data gathering,
storage, and matching more efficiently than if it were performed manually.
Appellants point out that limitation [viii] recites that a query
identifying a first user identifier is received specifically from the remote
server. Id. at 5–6. This language does not provide persuasive evidence that
the claim recites significantly more than an abstract idea because, as
explained above, receiving data from a computer merely constitutes extra-
solution activity.
Appellants emphasize that limitation [x] recites generating a
transaction profile from transactions identified from data using the first
account identifier. Id. at 6. This argument is unpersuasive that the elements
recite significantly more than an abstract idea because the emphasized
language pertains to an abstract idea itself.
Appellants emphasize that limitation [xi] recites transmitting the
transaction profile to the remote computer as a response to the query. Id.
This argument is unpersuasive that the elements recite significantly more
Appeal 2017-010904
Application 14/458,754
16
than an abstract idea because the emphasized language pertains to extra-
solution data transmission.
For these reasons, Appellants do not persuade us that the limitations
of claim 1 viewed both individually, and as an ordered combination,
improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology. MPEP
§ 2106.05(a). Nor do Appellants persuade us that the limitations recite a
particular machine, recite a particular transformation, or add any other
meaningful limitations beyond the abstract idea of mapping data and
generating a profile. MPEP § 2106.05(b), (c), (e). As such, Appellants do
not persuade us that the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. 84 Fed.
Reg. 52–55.
Step 2B
Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze whether
claim 1 adds any specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. 84 Fed. Reg. 56;
MPEP § 2106.05(d). We determine that claim 1 does not add any such
limitations.
The Examiner determines that the additional claim elements beyond
the abstract idea reasonably can be characterized as “a generic recitation of
software performing an abstract idea.” Final Act. 8. Appellants’
Specification supports the Examiner’s determination that the abstract ideas
may be carried out by generic components.
For example, Appellants’ Specification indicates that the transaction
handler may be a generic processor. Spec. ¶ 442 (In one embodiment, the
transaction handler (103) is a payment processing system, or a payment card
Appeal 2017-010904
Application 14/458,754
17
processor, such as a card processor for credit cards, debit cards, etc.).
Furthermore, the transaction handler is not the only component that
Appellants’ Specification indicates may be practiced by conventional
processors or components:
Figure 7 illustrates a data processing system according to
one embodiment. While Figure 7 illustrates various components
of a computer system, it is not intended to represent any
particular architecture or manner of interconnecting the
components. One embodiment may use other systems that have
fewer or more components than those shown in Figure 7.
Spec. ¶ 443; see also Spec. ¶¶ 444–59 (indicating that conventional, generic
computer components may be employed for various claimed elements of the
invention).
For these reasons, we determine that claim 1 does not recite additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. 84 Fed. Reg. 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 patent-ineligible subject matter. We,
likewise, sustain the 101 rejection of claims 2–20, which Appellants do not
argue separately. Reply Br. 12.

THE DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 on the ground of non-statutory
double patenting over US 8,595,058 B2; issued Nov. 26, 2013). Final
Act. 2–4. Appellants do not challenge this rejection. See generally App. Br.
(wherein Appellants only argue the eligibility of the claims). Accordingly,
we summarily sustain this rejection. See MPEP § 1205.02 (“If a ground of
Appeal 2017-010904
Application 14/458,754
18
rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, that
ground of rejection will be summarily sustained by the Board.”).

CONCLUSIONS
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 as being directed
to patent-ineligible subject matter.
We summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 for
non-statutory double patenting.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 is affirmed.
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