Eric Liu et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2020

13310104 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2020)

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.
13/310,104 12/02/2011 Eric Liu 141996 (899484) 4141
15093 7590 03/30/2020
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
FLETCHER, JERRY-DARYL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2020 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qcominst@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ERIC LIU and STEFAN J. MARTI
____________
Appeal 2018-003395
Application 13/310,104
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN A. EVANS, BETH Z. SHAW, and STEPHEN E. BELISLE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of claims 17–20, 22–25, 29–31, 35–37, and
41–46, all pending claims.1 Appeal Br. 1; see also Non-Final Act. 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant states the real party in interest is Qualcomm
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief filed October 26, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply
Brief filed February 8, 2018 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed
Appeal 2018-003395
Application 13/310,104

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method of determining an emotional state of a
person. See Abstract.
Invention
Claims 17, 23, 29, and 35 are independent. Appeal Br. 21–26, Claims
App. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
claim 17, which is reproduced below in Table I.
Rejections3
Claims 17–20, 22–25, 29–31, 35–37, and 41–46 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly
more. Non-Final Act. 2–5.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 17–20, 22–25, 29–31, 35–
37, and 41–46 in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We
have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.

December 11, 2017 (“Ans.”); the Non-Final Action mailed June 1, 2017
(“Non-Final Act.”); and the Specification filed December 2, 2011 (“Spec.”)
for their respective details.
3 The present application was examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
provisions. Non-Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2018-003395
Application 13/310,104

3
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We consider Appellant’s arguments as they are presented
in the Appeal Brief, pages 6–19.
CLAIMS 17–20, 22–25, 29–31, 35–37, AND 41–46:
INELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER

Appellant argues these claims as a group in view of the recitations of
claim 17. App. Br. 19. Therefore, we decide the appeal of the 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 rejection on the basis of representative claim 17 and refer to the
rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

The Rejection and Appellant’s Contentions.
The Examiner finds the claims are directed to capturing data, i.e., user
biometric information and content items, analyzing the data, i.e., associating
values to content, determining current emotional state, determining whether
a metric is within a threshold, and displaying results of the analysis. Non-
Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner finds the Federal Circuit has held the capture,
analysis, and display of the results of the analysis is an abstract idea. Id. at 4
(citing Electric Power Group).4 The Examiner finds the remaining elements
perform routine, conventional, and well-understood industry practices. Id.
Appellant contends the claims are not “directed to any fundamental
economic practice, method of organizing human activity, idea of itself, or
mathematical formula.” App. Br. 8. Appellant argues, in analogy to DDR
Holdings, the invention embodied in the claims is necessarily rooted in

4 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (2016).
Appeal 2018-003395
Application 13/310,104

4
computer technology to overcome a problem arising specifically in the realm
of computer systems and networks.5 Id. at 10. Specifically, Appellant
contends “[m]anufacturers of computing devices are challenged with
providing positive user experiences so that users enjoy using their
computing devices. As described in detail below, various example
embodiments relate to techniques of determining, modifying, and/or tracking
a user’s emotional state. In addition, various example embodiments relate to
techniques of reacting to and influencing the user’s emotional state through
the presentation of media, other content items, and the like. As a result, a
more positive user experience may be achieved.” Id.
We review the record de novo. SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade
Commission, 601 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Whether a claim is
drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is an issue of law that we review de
novo.”). Based upon our review of the record in light of recent policy
guidance with respect to patent-eligible subject matter rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 101, we affirm the rejection of claims 17–20, 22–25, 29–31, 35–
37, and 41–46 for the specific reasons discussed below.6
35 U.S.C. § 101
Section 101 provides that a patent may be obtained for “any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof.” See 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court

5 DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
6 See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.”).
Appeal 2018-003395
Application 13/310,104

5
has long recognized, however, that 35 U.S.C. § 101 implicitly excludes
“[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” from the realm of
patent-eligible subject matter, as monopolization of these “basic tools of
scientific and technological work” would stifle the very innovation that the
patent system aims to promote. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad
Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)); see also Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72–78 (2012); and Diamond
v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981).
Under the mandatory Revised Guidance, we reconsider whether
Appellant’s claims recite:
1. any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas
(i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human
interactions 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)).
Only if a claim, (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then reach
the issue of 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
Appeal 2018-003395
Application 13/310,104

6
generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Whether the claims recite a judicial exception.
The Revised Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts
identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract-idea
exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited
as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or per se):
(a) mathematical concepts,7 i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical
formulas, equations,8 and mathematical calculations;9 (b) certain methods of
organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices
(including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal
interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business
relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or

7 Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“The concept of hedging . . .
reduced to a mathematical formula . . . is an unpatentable abstract idea.”).
8 Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191 (“A mathematical formula as such is not accorded
the protection of our patent laws.”); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594
(1978) (“[T]he discovery of [a mathematical formula] cannot support a
patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application.”).
9 SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(holding that claims to a “series of mathematical calculations based on
selected information” are directed to abstract ideas).
Appeal 2018-003395
Application 13/310,104

7
instructions);10 and (c) mental processes—concepts performed in the human
mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).11
The preamble of independent claim 17 recites: “[a] first computing
device comprising.” The limitations recited in the body of the claim are
analyzed in Table I against the categories of abstract ideas as set forth in the
Revised Guidance.
Claim 1 Revised Guidance, p. 52
[a] a memory;12 A mechanical limitation not
encompassed by the Guidance.
[b] one or more sensors;

A mechanical limitation not
encompassed by the Guidance.
[c] a processor coupled to the
memory and the one or more
sensors, the processor configured to:
A mechanical limitation not
encompassed by the Guidance.
[d] obtain real-time biometric
information corresponding to a user
using the one or more sensors;

Insignificant extra-solution activity,
mere data-gathering. Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52, n. 31.

10 Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 (concluding that use of a third party to mediate
settlement risk is a “fundamental economic practice” and thus an abstract
idea); see Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52 n.13 for a more extensive
listing of “certain methods of organizing human activity” that have been
found to be abstract ideas.
11 Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71 (“[M]ental processes[ ] and abstract intellectual
concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and
technological work.”) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67
(1972)).
12 Step designators, e.g., “[a],” were added to facilitate discussion.
Appeal 2018-003395
Application 13/310,104

8
[e] determine a first metric
corresponding to a current
emotional state of the user based at
least on the obtained biometric
information;
Mental processes, i.e., concepts
performed in the human mind
including observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion. Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52.
[f] receive a first content item from
a second computing device;

Insignificant extra-solution activity,
mere data-gathering. Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52, n. 31.
[g] parse one or more words
associated with the first content
item;

Mental processes, i.e., concepts
performed in the human mind
including observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion. Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52.
[h] determine a first emotional tag,
the first emotional tag including at
least on one or more values
associated with the one or more
words, the one or more values
indicating a predicted emotional
state impact from presenting the
first content item to a person;

Mental processes, i.e., concepts
performed in the human mind
including observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion. Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52.
[i] determine a second metric based
on the first metric and the one or
more values of the first emotional
tag;

Mental processes, i.e., concepts
performed in the human mind
including observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion. Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52.
[j] determine whether the second
metric is within a predetermined
range, the predetermined range
indicating a desired emotional state
of the user; and
Mental processes, i.e., concepts
performed in the human mind
including observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion. Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52.
Appeal 2018-003395
Application 13/310,104

9
[k] in response to determining that
the second metric is within the
predetermined range, display the
first content item to the user.

Insignificant extra-solution activity,
mere data-gathering.13 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52, n. 31.

In view of Table I, we find limitations [e] and [g]–[j] of independent
claim 17 recite abstract ideas, i.e., mental processes. Thus, claim 17 recites
a judicial exception, per se.

Step 2A(ii): Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Appellant contends claim 17 “is not directed to any fundamental
economic practice, method of organizing human activity, idea of itself, or
mathematical formula.” Appeal Br. 8. Under the Revised Guidance,
Appellant’s “directed to” contention is addressed at Step 2A(ii).
If the claims recite a patent-ineligible concept, as we conclude above,
we proceed to the “practical application” Step 2A(ii) wherein we determine
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any

13 “The notion that [extra]-solution activity, no matter how conventional or
obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable
process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach
some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula.”
Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590 (1978) (Holding that step of adjusting an
alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical
formula was “post-solution activity.”).

Appeal 2018-003395
Application 13/310,104

10
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
For the reasons which follow, we conclude that Appellant’s claims do
not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
MPEP § 2106.05(a) “Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer
or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field.”
“In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether
the claim ‘purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself’” or
“any other technology or technical field.” MPEP § 2106.05(a).
With respect to technological improvements, Appellant analogizes to
DDR Holdings and contends:
[m]anufacturers of computing devices are challenged with
providing positive user experiences so that users enjoy using
their computing devices. As described in detail below, various
example embodiments relate to techniques of determining,
modifying, and/or tracking a user’s emotional state. In
addition, various example embodiments relate to techniques of
reacting to and influencing the user’s emotional state through
the presentation of media, other content items, and the like. As
a result, a more positive user experience may be achieved.
Appeal Br. 10 (quoting Spec. ¶ 10). Appellant further argues:
[in] particular, an emotionally intelligent computing device that
can adjust to the emotional state of a user is desirable. Whereas
people can often determine the emotional state of a colleague or
friend and adjust their actions accordingly, computers generally
cannot determine a user’s emotional state and alter its actions in
light of that emotional state.
Id. (quoting Spec. ¶ 11).
Appeal 2018-003395
Application 13/310,104

11
However, Appellant’s own words indicate the claims focus on
organizing human activity. Appellant argues “[i]n addition, various example
embodiments relate to techniques of reacting to and influencing the user’s
emotional state through the presentation of media, other content items, and
the like.” Appeal Br. 10 (quoting Spec. ¶ 10). “[I]nfluencing the user’s
emotional state” is a means of “managing personal behavior.” See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52.; see also Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354
(Recognizing “that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of
collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a
particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such
collection and analysis.”) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (Explaining
that “selecting information, by content or source, for collection analysis, and
display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary
mental processes.”).
At limitation [k], “in response to determining that the second metric”
[i.e., a user’s emotional state] is within the predetermined range,”
Appellant’s claims “display the first content item to the user.” App. Br. 17,
Claims App. Appellant fails to direct our attention to an improvement in the
functioning of a computer. “[R]eceiving transmitted data over a network
and displaying it to a user merely implicates purely conventional activities
that are the ‘most basic functions of a computer.’” Intellectual Ventures I
LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054,
1065 (E.D. Mo. 2011) aff’d, 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Explaining that
“storing, retrieving, and providing data . . . are inconsequential data
Appeal 2018-003395
Application 13/310,104

12
gathering and insignificant post solution activity.”).
The claims collect data, recognize certain data within the collected
data set, and present the data for display, which the courts have recognized
as abstract. See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine.
The Bilski machine-or-transformation test is only applicable to
method (process) claims on appeal in the present application. Appellant
discloses generic computer devices:
Emotional impact determination module 222 can determine a
predicted emotional impact of a presented content item based
on a keyword associated with the presented content item. For
instance, if the content item is an email, emotional impact
determination module 222 can parse the words in the email and
compare the parsed words to keywords stored in a database.
The stored keywords can be stored in association with an
affective meaning, represented by scores along one or more
dimensions. The stored keywords and associated affective
meaning can be part of a preexisting database stored on the
computer for purposes of emotional impact determination.

Spec. ¶ 35. There is no indication that comparing scanned words to those
stored in a database is anything other than a conventional computer function.
Nor do we find disclosure of anything other than generic computer hardware
or software.
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
Appeal 2018-003395
Application 13/310,104

13
This section of the MPEP guides: “Another consideration when
determining whether a claim recites significantly more is whether the claim
effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state
or thing.” “Transformation and reduction of an article to a different state or
thing is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include
particular machines.” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 658 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S.
at 70).
The claims select and analyze certain electronic data. The selection of
electronic data is not a “transformation or reduction of an article into a
different state or thing constituting patent-eligible subject matter.” See In re
Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added); see also
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (“The mere manipulation or reorganization of data . . . does not satisfy
the transformation prong.”). Applying this guidance here, we conclude
Appellant’s method claims fail to satisfy the transformation prong of the
Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.

This section of the MPEP guides:
Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited
meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
450 U.S. 175 . . . (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to
the use of the Arrhenius equation (an abstract idea or law of
nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding
press. 450 U.S. at 177-78. . . . The Court evaluated additional
elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press,
closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the
mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time,
Appeal 2018-003395
Application 13/310,104

14
and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently
limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical
application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184,
187. . . . In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of
mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S. . . . . In particular, the
Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data
processing system and communications controllers recited in
the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea
because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a
particular technological environment (i.e., “implementation via
computers”) or were well-understood, routine, conventional
activity.
MPEP § 2106.05(e).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a
generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. Similarly as in Alice, we find
that “[t]aking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is ‘[p]urely conventional.’” Id. “In
short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform
generic computer functions.” Id. We find that Appellant’s claims do not
add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial
exception to a particular technological environment.
MPEP § 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception.
Appellant does not persuasively argue that the claims do any more
than to merely invoke generic computer components as a tool in which the
computer instructions apply the judicial exception.

MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Appeal 2018-003395
Application 13/310,104

15
The claims acquire and display data, which are classic examples of
insignificant extra-solution activity. See, e.g., Bilski, 545 F.3d at 963
(en banc), aff’d sub nom, Bilski, 561 U.S. 593.
MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.

[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not
wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited
meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or
post-solution activity—such as identifying a relevant audience,
a category of use, field of use, or technological environment.
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). We
find the claims manipulate “prescription information for a patient,” which is
simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular
technological environment. We do not find Appellant’s arguments to be
persuasive because “[t]he courts have also identified examples in which a
judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.”
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 55. The claims fail to recite a practical
application where the additional element does more than generally link the
use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field
of use. Id. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular field is
not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
See id. at 55 n.32. In view of the foregoing, we conclude the claims are
“directed to” a judicial exception.
3. Well-understood, routine, conventional.
Because the claims recite a judicial exception and do not integrate that
exception into a practical application, we must then reach the issue of
whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception
Appeal 2018-003395
Application 13/310,104

16
that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
The written description describes the claimed computer system
consistent with its being well-understood, routine, and conventional:
Computing device 100 may include a controller 120 having an
emotional state determination module 122. Controller 120 may
include a processor and a memory for implementing emotional
state determination module 122. The processor may include at
least one central processing unit (CPU), at least one
semiconductor-based microprocessor, at least one digital signal
processor (DSP) such as a digital image processing unit, other
hardware devices or processing elements suitable to retrieve
and execute instructions stored in memory, or combinations
thereof. The processor can include single or multiple cores on a
chip, multiple cores across multiple chips, multiple cores across
multiple devices, or combinations thereof. The processor may
fetch, decode, and execute instructions from memory to
perform various functions, such as generating, processing, and
transmitting image data.
Spec. ¶ 17.
The machine-readable storage medium may be any electronic,
magnetic, optical, or other physical storage device that contains
or stores executable instructions.
Spec. ¶ 18.
Emotional impact determination module 222 can determine a
predicted emotional impact of a presented content item based
on a keyword associated with the presented content item. For
instance, if the content item is an email, emotional impact
determination module 222 can parse the words in the email and
compare the parsed words to keywords stored in a database.
Spec. ¶ 18.
4. Specified at a high level of generality.
Appeal 2018-003395
Application 13/310,104

17
It is indicative of the absence of an inventive concept where the
claims simply append 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. 56.
The claims fail to recite any specific steps of an algorithm, nor does
Appellant cite any Specification disclosure for the required specificity.
We find the limitations are specified at such a high level of generality
consistent with the absence of an inventive concept. Considering the claim
limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing to the abstract idea that
is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. See
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79. The ordered combination of limitations amounts to
nothing more than certain mental processes implemented with generic
computer components that operate “in a conventional way.” See also Alice,
573 U.S. at 225–26. Therefore, we conclude that none of the claim
limitations, viewed “both individually and as an ordered combination,”
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in order to
sufficiently transform the nature of the claims into patent-eligible subject
matter. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quotations omitted) (quoting Mayo, 566
U.S. at 79).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claims 17–20,
22–25, 29–31, 35–37, and 41–46 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Appeal 2018-003395
Application 13/310,104

18

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
17–20, 22–
25, 29–31,
35–37, and
41–46
101 Eligibility 17–20, 22–
25, 29–31,
35–37, and
41–46

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED