Ex Parte Tagg

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 27, 2019

11053377 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/053,377 02/08/2005 Bradley S. Tagg
30449 7590 07/01/2019
SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS
22 CENTURY HILL DRIVE
SUITE 302
LATHAM, NY 12110
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
END920040 l 59US 1 7301
EXAMINER
WEISENFELD, ARYANE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2019 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):
30449@IPLA WUSA.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
ExparteBRADLEYS. TAGG
Appeal2018-003369
Application 11/053,377 1
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1, 4--8, 10, 11, 13-18, 22-27, 29, 31-37, 41--46, 48,
50-56, 60-65, 67, 69-74, and 76. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-003369
Application 11/053,377
THE INVENTION
Appellant's Specification "relates to a system and associated method
to manage terms and conditions for an agreement." Spec. 1:4--5.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A system, comprising:
a processing device;
an agreement authoring tool, compnsmg a software
component, installed on a hardware computing apparatus
electrically connected to a plurality of computing apparatuses
through a network, wherein said agreement authoring tool
installed on said hardware computing apparatus is for
generating a revisable agreement defining a set of terms and
conditions related to an offering, wherein said offering
comprises a software product, a component of said software
product, or an Internet service, wherein said terms and
conditions consist of copyright laws associated with said
offering and a specific time frame that said offering is good,
wherein said processing device is for executing said agreement
authoring tool, wherein said agreement authoring tool is for
first managing a list of agreement subscribers, wherein said first
managing is based on messages exchanged when a customer
receives the offering, accepts an agreement, and becomes a
subscriber; wherein said agreement authoring tool is for second
managing a list of different agreements previously transmitted
to different agreement managing tools for future maintenance of
the different agreements, wherein said agreement authoring tool
is configured to generate a registration associating said offering
with a subscriber, wherein said agreement authoring tool is
configured to store said registration in a subscriber database
within said agreement authoring tool, wherein said agreement
authoring tool is configured to verify, based on said
registration, that said offering is associated with said subscriber,
wherein said agreement authoring tool is configured to generate
at least one associated action related to said revisable
agreement, wherein said at least one associated action is for
2
Appeal2018-003369
Application 11/053,377
said agreement managing tool to perform an automated action
on a copy of said revisable agreement, wherein said action
comprises a future action consisting of extending said revisable
agreement, accepting or declining said revisable agreement, and
changing terms of said revisable agreement, wherein said
processor is configured to apply local and enterprise level
defaults and limits to said copy of said revisable agreement,
wherein said local and enterprise level defaults and limits are
associated with choices provided by said at least one associated
action, wherein said processor is configured to define enterprise
policies related to performing said specified action on said
copy, wherein said enterprise policies are associated with a
governing party, wherein said enterprise policies comprise
defaults related to choices and user agreements related to said
revisable agreement, wherein said agreement authoring tool is
configured to define a related script, wherein said related script
comprises an executable sequence of steps comprised by said at
least one associated action, wherein said agreement authoring
tool is configured to determine that a relationship exists
between said related script and additional execution scripts
comprised by additional actions from additional agreements,
wherein said agreement authoring tool is configured to link said
least one associated action to the related script and a related
event comprising a related portion of said revisable agreement,
wherein said agreement authoring tool is configured to link said
least one associated action, said related script and said related
event to said additional execution scripts, said additional
actions, and said additional agreements, wherein said agreement
authoring tool is configured to persistently store said revisable
agreement and said least one associated action as a master copy
within an agreements and actions database of said agreement
authoring tool, wherein said packaging tool is configured to
create a software package comprising said copy of said
revisable agreement, said offering, said at least one associated
action, said related script, said related event, said additional
execution scripts, said additional actions, and said additional
agreements, and wherein said agreement authoring tool is
configured to transmit over a network said package to an
agreement managing tool for revising said copy;
3
Appeal2018-003369
Application 11/053,377
a local policy managing software tool compnsmg an
internal cache for storing said enterprise policies as a hierarchal
relationship; and
an agreement managing software tool, installed on said
plurality of computing apparatuses and interacting with local
agreement managing tools located on said plurality of
computing apparatuses, for executing said at least one
associated action via said related script, wherein said at least
one associated action is tracked, logged, and transmitted after
being executed.
THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 1, 4--8, 10, 11, 13-18, 22-27, 29, 31-37, 41--46, 48, 50-56,
60-65, 67, 69-74, and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner's findings as set forth on pages 2-35 in the
Final Office Action and on pages 2-13 in the Examiner's Answer,
concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection.
35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION
We will affirm the rejection of claims 1, 4--8, 10, 11, 13-18, 22-27,
29, 31-37, 41--46, 48, 50-56, 60-65, 67, 69-74, and 76 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
The Appellant argues independent claims 1, 8, 18, 27, 37, 46, 56, and
65 as a group, and we select claim 1 as the representative claim for this
group (App. Br. 31), and so the remaining claims 4--8, 10, 11, 13-18, 22-27,
4
Appeal2018-003369
Application 11/053,377
29, 31-37, 41--46, 48, 50-56, 60-65, 67, 69-74, and 76 stand or fall with
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "'[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas'" are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bankint'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
and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See id. 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. Kappas, 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 (Gottschalkv. 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
5
Appeal2018-003369
Application 11/053,377
rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 183 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
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 ("We
view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). 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., Diehr, 450 U.S. 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 tum to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive
concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted).
"A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to
ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
6
Appeal2018-003369
Application 11/053,377
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.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Guidance"). Under the Guidance, we first
look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure ("MPEP") § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)).
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.
See generally Guidance.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has explained that
"the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in
light of the [S]pecification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is
directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v.
Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether
the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology
7
Appeal2018-003369
Application 11/053,377
or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers
are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335-36.
In so doing, as indicated above, we apply a "directed to" two prong
test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the
claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "appl[ies],
rel[ies] on, or use[s] 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." Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 53; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h).
The Specification describes that:
The agreement specifies terms and conditions related to the
offering. An offering may include, inter alia, a software
product, a component of a software product (e.g., a web
service), an internet service, etc. . . . The revisable agreement
may comprise revisable terms and conditions that are
predefined by the agreement authoring tool 5. Alternatively,
the revisable agreement may comprise revisable terms and
conditions that are negotiable .... "
Spec. 6:12-19.
part:
Understood in light of the Specification, claim 1, recites, in pertinent
generating a revisable agreement defining a set of terms and
conditions related to an offering, wherein said offering
comprises a software product, a component of said software
product, or an Internet service, wherein said terms and
conditions consist of copyright laws associated with said
offering and a specific time frame that said offering is good, ...
first managing a list of agreement subscribers, wherein said first
managing is based on messages exchanged when a customer
receives the offering, accepts an agreement, and becomes a
subscriber; . . . managing a list of different agreements
previously transmitted to different agreement managing tools
8
Appeal2018-003369
Application 11/053,377
for future maintenance of the different agreements, . . . generate
a registration associating said offering with a subscriber, ...
store said registration in a subscriber database ... verify, based
on said registration, that said offering is associated with said
subscriber, ... generate at least one associated action related to
said revisable agreement, wherein said at least one associated
action is ... to perform an automated action on a copy of said
revisable agreement, wherein said action comprises a future
action consisting of extending said revisable agreement,
accepting or declining said revisable agreement, and changing
terms of said revisable agreement, . . . apply local and
enterprise level defaults and limits to said copy of said revisable
agreement, wherein said local and enterprise level defaults and
limits are associated with choices provided by said at least one
associated action, . . . define enterprise policies related to
performing said specified action on said copy, wherein said
enterprise policies are associated with a governing party,
wherein said enterprise policies comprise defaults related to
choices and user agreements related to said revisable
agreement, . . . define a related script, wherein said related
script comprises an executable sequence of steps comprised by
said at least one associated action, . . . determine that a
relationship exists between said related script and additional
execution scripts comprised by additional actions from
additional agreements, ... link said least one associated action
to the related script and a related event comprising a related
portion of said revisable agreement, ... link said least one
associated action, said related script and said related event to
said additional execution scripts, said additional actions, and
said additional agreements, ... persistently store said revisable
agreement and said least one associated action as a master copy
within an agreements and actions database . . . create a . . .
package comprising said copy of said revisable agreement, said
offering, said at least one associated action, said related script,
said related event, said additional execution scripts, said
additional actions, and said additional agreements, and wherein
... transmit ... said package ... for revising said copy; ... an
internal cache for storing said enterprise policies as a hierarchal
relationship; and ... executing said at least one associated
9
Appeal2018-003369
Application 11/053,377
action via said related script, wherein said at least one
associated action is tracked, logged, and transmitted after being
executed.
Accordingly, the Examiner found that the claims are directed to
"managing terms and conditions for an agreement and is specifically defined
by the claim limitations above. As such, the claims fall under at least the
categories of a fundamental economic practice, certain methods of
organizing human activity, and an idea of itself." Final Act. 7 (emphasis
omitted).
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is at least directed to
managing terms and conditions for an agreement because claim 1 requires
inter alia, "wherein said action comprises a future action consisting of
extending said revisable agreement," "generate at least one associated action
related to said revisable agreement" and "create a ... package comprising
said copy of said revisable agreement, said offering, said at least one
associated action, said related script, said related event, ... and said
additional agreements." These are the basic elements of contract formation
and revision. Certain methods of organizing human activity include
"commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of
contracts; legal obligations; ... or business relations)." Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52. The patent-ineligible end of the spectrum includes organizing
human activity. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-
20).
Turning to the second prong of the "directed to" test, claim 1 only
generically requires "a hardware component," and "plurality of computing
apparatuses," and "a network." These components are described in the
10
Appeal2018-003369
Application 11/053,377
Specification at a high level of generality. See Spec. 15, Figure 1. We fail
to see how the generic recitations of these most basic computer components
and/or of a system so integrates the judicial exception as to "impose[] a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 53.
Thus, we determine that the claims recite the judicial exception of
managing terms and conditions for an agreement that is not integrated into a
practical application.
That the claims do not preempt all forms of the abstraction or may be
limited to revisions to agreements, does not make them any less abstract.
See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) ("And that the claims do not preempt all price optimization or
may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make
them any less abstract.").
Turning to the second step of the Alice analysis, because we find that
the claims are directed to abstract ideas/judicial exceptions, the claims must
include an "inventive concept" in order to be patent-eligible, i.e., there must
be an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim
in practice amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
Concerning this step the Examiner found the following:
Applying the test to the claims in the instant application, the
structural elements of the invention, which include a processing
device; when taken in combination with the functional
elements of (for independent claims 1) generating a revisable
agreement; . . . [which] together do not offer 'significantly
more' than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not
11
Appeal2018-003369
Application 11/053,377
recite an improvement to another technology or technical field,
an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or
provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an
abstract idea (managing terms and conditions for an agreement)
to a particular technological environment (a general purpose
computer). It should be noted that Applicants' Specification
discloses mere general purpose computing equipment for
performing the steps of the invention ([s]ee, e.g., [p]age 16,
lines 9-21 which define the system as comprising "a processor
91, an input device 92 coupled to the processor 91, an output
device 93 coupled to the processor 91, and memory devices 94
and 95 each coupled to the processor 91. The input device 92
may be, inter alia, a keyboard, a mouse, etc. The output device
93 may be, inter alia, a printer, a plotter, a computer screen, a
magnetic tape, a removable hard disk, a floppy 15 disk, etc.
The memory devices 94 and 95 may be, inter alia, a hard disk,
a floppy disk, a magnetic tape, an optical storage such as a
compact disc (CD) or a digital video disc (DVD), a dynamic
random access memory (DRAM), a read-only memory (ROM),
etc. The memory device 95 includes a computer code 97."
These are all generic computer components).
Final Act. 14, 16-17. We agree with the Examiner. "[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. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer to generate, execute, manage, maintain, perform and transmit data
are some of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer
functions are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously
known to the industry. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F .3d
1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing
Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible
12
Appeal2018-003369
Application 11/053,377
narrower construction of the terms 'processing,' 'receiving,' and 'storing,' ..
. those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without
special programming"). In short, each step does no more than require a
generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant's claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are
considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis (generating,
executing, managing, linking, maintaining, and apply decision criteria to
data to perform a result) and storing is equally generic and conventional or
otherwise held to be abstract. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d
709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for
exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an
abstraction); Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d
1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that sequence of data retrieval,
analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission was abstract);
Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc 'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329,
1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding sequence of processing, routing, controlling,
and monitoring was abstract). The ordering of the steps is, therefore,
ordinary and conventional.
Thus, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than
instructions to apply the abstract idea of a judicial exception of managing
terms and conditions for a revisable agreement using some unspecified,
generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an
abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26.
We have reviewed all the arguments Appellant has submitted
concerning the patent eligibility of the claims before us that stand rejected
13
Appeal2018-003369
Application 11/053,377
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. App. Br. 28-50. We find that our analysis above
substantially covers the substance of all the arguments, which have been
made. But, for purposes of completeness, we will address various
arguments in order to make individual rebuttals of same.
Appellant argues:
Appellant asserts that claims 1, 8, 18, 27, 37, 46, 56, and 65 are
directed to network based communications and automated
script executions resulting in multiple hardware and software
components interacting to execute automated scripts linked to
actions ( creating a specialized software package) that are
transmitted, tracked, and logged via internal software based
database and cache structures.
Appeal Br. 31.
To the extent Appellant is arguing that these are additional elements
which constitute an inventive concept, such features cannot constitute the
"inventive concept." Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir.
2018) (Moore, J., concurring) ("It is clear from Mayo that the 'inventive
concept' cannot be the abstract idea itself, and Berkheimer . .. leave[s]
untouched the numerous cases from this court which have held claims
ineligible because the only alleged 'inventive concept' is the abstract idea.");
see also BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir.
2018) ("It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention's use of the
ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept
that renders the invention 'significantly more' than that ineligible concept.").
We also disagree with Appellant that under the holding in Enfish our
decision would be different. Enfish, 822 F.3d 1327; Appeal Br. 33-34, 41-
42. By contrast, the claims here are directed to an improvement in computer
technology like that of claim 17 in Enfish and, therefore, are patent eligible.
14
Appeal2018-003369
Application 11/053,377
In Enfzsh, the invention at issue was directed at a wholly new type of logical
model for a computer database: a self-referential table that allowed the
computer to store many different types of data in a single table and index
that data by column and row information. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1330-32. In
finding the claims are "not directed to an abstract idea," but "to a specific
improvement to the way computers operate," the Federal Circuit noted that
"the claims are not simply directed to any form of storing tabular data, but
instead are specifically directed to a self-referential table for a computer
database." Id. at 1336-37. We find nothing in the claims before us arising
to this level of technical improvement in the claimed "hardware
component," "plurality of computing apparatuses," and "a network" which
arises to the level of technical proficiency as found in Enfzsh. Instead, we
find the claims are focused on "economic or other tasks for which a
computer is used in its ordinary capacity." Id. at 1336. "[T]he mere
recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract
idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea 'while adding
the words "apply it" ' is not enough for patent eligibility." Alice, 573 U.S. at
223.
Appellant states, "the Federal Circuit in Enfzsh holds that whether a
claim involves an abstract idea is irrelevant, and the correct legal test is
whether the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea." Appeal Br.
33.
Although we agree with Appellant that the claims must be read, as a
whole, we nevertheless find, on balance, that claim 1 is directed to an
agreement revision process for the reasons specified above with respect to
our "directed to" findings. As found supra, claim 1 only includes the
15
Appeal2018-003369
Application 11/053,377
following generically recited device limitations: "a hardware component," "a
plurality of computing apparatuses," and "a network." What remains in the
claim after disregarding these device limitations, are abstractions, i.e.,
"extending said revisable agreement," "generate at least one associated
action related to said revisable agreement" and "create a ... package
comprising said copy of said revisable agreement, said offering, said at least
one associated action, said related script, said related event, ... and said
additional agreements." "[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) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90).
Appellant lists various claim limitations (Appeal Br. 31-33, 35-37,
39--41, 44--49) as examples of technical improvements without providing
evidence that they are improvements in the computer as contrasted with
organizing human activity which includes contract formation and revision.
Although "a hardware component," "a plurality of computing apparatuses,"
and "a network" are by definition in some sense technological, their use has
become so notoriously settled that merely invoking them is no more than
abstract conceptual advice to use well known technology for its intended
purpose. See In re TL! Commc'ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612-13
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (Using a generic telephone for its intended purpose was a
well-established "basic concept" sufficient to fall under Alice step 1. ).
For the reasons identified above, we determine there are no
deficiencies in the Examiner's prima facie case of patent ineligibility of the
rejected claims. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner's§ 101 rejection.
16
Appeal2018-003369
Application 11/053,377
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4--8, 10,
11, 13-18,22-27,29,31-37,41--46,48,50-56,60-65,67,69-74,and76
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
The Examiner's § 101 rejection 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
17