FIDESSA TRADING UK LIMITEDDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 16, 20202019002598 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2020) 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. 14/446,217 07/29/2014 Paul Nokes 081601.0122 6177 21003 7590 11/16/2020 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA 44TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10112-4498 EXAMINER POLLOCK, GREGORY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3695 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/16/2020 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): DLNYDOCKET@BAKERBOTTS.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte PAUL NOKES, PETER MARTIN, SIMON HALSON, PAUL WHENHAM, and DAVID PEARSON1 ____________________ Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ADAM J. PYONIN, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6, 8 through 12, 14 through 18, 20 through 28, 30, and 32 through 39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Fidessa PLC is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 2 INVENTION The invention relates generally to a technique for managing the trading of financial instruments using a central utility including one or more storage devices for storing a set of rules for confirmation in the trading of financial instruments. Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A system for managing the trading of financial instruments, comprising: a central utility operatively connected with a central data administration, wherein the central utility is remotely positioned between a first computing device and a second computing device, the central utility comprising one or more storage devices which store code of an algorithm, the code comprising at least one of data sets of fund details, instructions, market charges, and a set of rules for confirmation in the trading of financial instruments, the set of rules being predetermined, preapproved, and including terms of engagement; one or more transmitters and receivers communicatively coupled to a network; one or more processors operatively coupled to the one or more storage devices and the one or more transmitters and receivers, the one or more processors configured to execute the code to: receive trade messages sent over the network between the first computing device and the second computing device, wherein the receiving includes transparently intercepting Financial Information eXchange (“FIX”) messages without interruption or change of a transmission, wherein at least one trade message includes an order instruction sent from one of the first computing device or the second computing device, an execution record, and allocation information from one of the first computing device or the second computing device including one or more allocated trades, wherein the execution record includes an order ID Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 3 parameter, an execution ID parameter, an executed volume parameter, and an executed price parameter, and wherein communication via the one or more transmitters and receivers over the network is in accordance with at least one protocol or format selected from the group comprising a FIX protocol, an ISO 15000 series of specifications, and a Swift format; validate the trade messages between the first computing device and the second computing device generate, via the central utility, an electronic file including an enriched trade report based on at least a combination of a transformation of the trade messages, the set of rules, and the allocation information, wherein the enriched trade report is a single trade report for each allocation in a standard file format, wherein the set of rules includes standard settlement instruction rules to generate standard settlement instructions for each allocated trade, and wherein the enriched trade report included in the generated electronic file includes the standard settlement instructions as applied and transformed by the central utility, applicable charges, and commission values, wherein the enriched trade report provides an enriched allocated trade without centralized matching; and transmit, over the network, the electronic file including the enriched trade report to provide a settle- able enriched bilateral trade with allocation information included; and a user interface operatively coupled with the central utility, the interface configured to: display information based on at least one of the market charges, the set of rules, the instructions, or the fund details, wherein the information displayed on the user interface is disposed in a single window in a vertically adjacent orientation, wherein the single window Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 4 includes at least one of a button and a drop-down list. EXAMINER’S REJECTION2 The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 4, 6, 8 through 12, 14 through 18, 20 through 28, 30 and 32 through 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2–6. 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 U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. 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 Court’s two-part 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 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 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed October 3, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed February 13, 2019 (“Reply Br.”) Final Office Action mailed June 14, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 10, 2019 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 5 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 waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citation omitted) (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.”). Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 6 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. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. B. USPTO Section 101 Guidance In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published revised guidance on the application of § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance”).3 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51; see also October 2019 Update at 1. This guidance has been incorporated in to the MPEP § 2106. Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, we first look to whether the claim recites: 3 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance. USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October 2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.p df). Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 7 (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) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); MPEP § 2106.04(a) and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).4 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 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, under Step 2B, 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 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56. 4 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance - Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. 54–55. Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 8 DISCUSSION Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 The Examiner determines the claims are not patent eligible because they are directed to a judicial exception without reciting significantly more. Final Act. 2–6. Specifically, the Examiner determines the claims recite several steps including collecting information, analyzing collected information, and displaying certain results, which is similar to concepts found abstract in Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Id. at 4–5. Also the Examiner determines the claims recite a fundamental economic practice, an abstract process. Final Act 5 (citing Alice). Further, the Examiner states: As an ordered combination, the claims are directed toward managing the trading of financial instruments which is analogous to organizing human activity (activities which can be performed mentally by a human using a pencil and paper), processing information through a clearinghouse (Dealertrack Inc. v Huber), and to the fundamental economic practices found to be abstract ideas by the courts (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v CLS Bank lnter'l). Thus the concept(s) described in the claimed invention is not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas. Id. at 5. (citing Dealertrack Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012 and Alice). The Examiner states that the limitations of receiving and transmitting are extra solution activities that are performed by a general purpose computer. Id. Further, the Examiner finds that the additional limitations of a computer, processor, and memory are generic computers performing basic functions of storing, retrieving processing and displaying. Id. at 6. Patent eligibility under § 101 is a question of law that may contain Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 9 underlying issues of fact. “We review the [Examiner’s] ultimate conclusion on patent eligibility de novo.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); see also SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 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.”). We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. We concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Final Rejection and the Answer. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of all the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and we address them as they apply to the 2019 Revised Guidance. The Judicial Exception Appellant argues the Examiner has failed to provide evidence that the claims recites an abstract idea and that assuming for the sake of argument that the Office’s characterization of the claims as being “directed to the abstract idea of managing the trading of financial instruments” is accurate, the Office has not adequately explained how the alleged abstract idea is “similar to at least one concept that the courts have identified as an abstract idea” [as is required by the guidance]. Appeal Br. 32. Appellant argues that the claims do not fall into one of the categories of “mathematical concepts,” “mental processes,” or “certain methods of organizing human activity” as required by the 2019 Revised Guidance. Reply Br. 6. Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s finding that the claim relates to organizing human activity (an activity which can be performed in the mind or using a pencil and paper) is in error as Appellant’s Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 10 Specification explicitly states the claimed invention cannot be achieved using a pencil and paper Id. at 7 (citing Specification 18, l. 30–19, l. 3). We concur with the Examiner that the claims recite a concept of gathering data, and analyzing the data, which is similar to the idea held to be abstract in Electric Power Group. The claims at issue in Electric Power Group recited several steps of receiving data from various sources, detecting and analyzing the data, and displaying certain data. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1351–52. The court stated “we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas.” Id. at 1353. In this case, representative claim 1 recites a system with a central utility comprising storage devices “which store code of an algorithm, the code comprising at least one of data sets of fund details, instructions, market charges, and a set of rules for confirmation in the trading of financial instruments, the set of rules being predetermined, preapproved, and including terms of engagement” (a collection of data); “receiving trade messages,” wherein at least one trade message includes an order instruction sent from one of the first computing device or the second computing device, an execution record, and allocation information from one of the first computing device or the second computing device including one or more allocated trades, wherein the execution record includes an order ID parameter, an execution ID parameter, an executed volume parameter, and an executed price parameter, and wherein communication via the one or more transmitters and receivers over the network is in accordance with at least one protocol or format selected from the group comprising a FIX protocol, an ISO 15000 series of specifications, and a Swift format, (a step of collecting data); validating the messages and generating an Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 11 electronic file including an enriched trade report an electronic file including an enriched trade report based on at least a combination of a transformation of the trade messages, the set of rules, and the allocation information, wherein the enriched trade report is a single trade report for each allocation in a standard file format, wherein the set of rules includes standard settlement instruction rules to generate standard settlement instructions for each allocated trade, and wherein the enriched trade report included in the generated electronic file includes the standard settlement instructions as applied and transformed by the central utility, applicable charges, and commission values, wherein the enriched trade report provides an enriched allocated trade without centralized matching (are steps of analyzing and aggregating the collected data); and a user interface to display information (a step of presenting the data). These steps can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper as they are merely gathering data, and generating a document with the data. We recognize that Appellant’s Specification states “the generation and transmission of the enriched trade report, in the format of an electronic file, cannot be accomplished with pen or paper, as enrichment of each allocation requires the processing of electronic messages with rules stored in a database.” Specification 19, ll. 1–3. However, we consider this to merely be stating that the electronic file cannot be generated and transmitted by pen and paper, not that the enriched trade report (analyzed data) cannot be generated by pen and paper. Thus, the Specification is merely discussing using a computer to performer a mental process, and as such formatting the analyzed data in an electronic format (see also Specification 2, ll. 1–12 which discuss a manual process of confirming the trade). Thus, we do not consider the Examiner to have overgeneralized the claims in determining they recite an abstract concept and we agree with the Examiner that the Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 12 claims recite an abstract concept (a mental process) similar to that at issue in Electric Power Group, and Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (finding claims to collecting and comparing known information determined to be steps that can be practically performed in the human mind); In re TLI Communications 823 F3d 607, 613 (Fed Cir 2016) (finding the claims to classifying and storing digital images as reciting an abstract idea) Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well- known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions.”); October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility 7 (discussing Electric Power Group and mental processes), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/ peg_oct_2019_update.pdf. The generation of an enriched trade report does not make the concept any less abstract. “[A] purportedly new arrangement of generic information that assists [users] in processing information more quickly” does not confer patent-eligibility. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 954 (2020). Further, we concur with the Examiner that the claims recite a fundamental economic process. The claimed data collected, “data sets of fund details, instructions, market charges, and a set of rules for confirmation in the trading of financial instruments, the set of rules being predetermined, preapproved, and including terms of engagement,” received “trade messages,” and “generate[d] . . . enriched trade report,” are all related to the commercial activity of generating a trade of funds. Thus, we consider the claim to recite the abstract concept of organizing human activity as it relates Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 13 to commercial interactions, business relations, and commercial or legal interactions.5 Thus, we consider representative claim 1 to recite elements of two abstract ideas: a mental process and a certain methods of organizing human activity, such as a fundamental economic practice. Merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea . . . does not render the claim non-abstract.”); see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining the pending claims were directed to a combination of abstract ideas). Thus, we conclude representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application Appellant argues that the claims are rooted in computer technology and therefore directed to patent eligible subject matter. Appeal Br. 12–15 (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Appellant argues that the claims: are directed to improvements in the managing, displaying, and production of information based on the transparent interception of FIX messages without interruption or change of a transmission via a remotely positioned central utility in the trading of financial instruments based on specifically defined communications protocols and a defined flow of information via the interception of said trade messages. In particular, the claims “specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result.” 5 We also note that Appellant characterizes the claim as an “improvement to previous systems and methods for managing the trading of financial instruments.” Reply Br. 11. Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 14 Appeal Br. 14–15 (citation omitted). Appellant further argues that the claims are directed to an improvement in a computer technology, stating the “specification, the claims achieve benefits over existing technology in that the present disclosure ‘provides the ability to trade financial instruments in a more efficient manner, without the overhead required by conventional independent matching.’” Appeal Br. 16–17 (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and Specification 18, ll. 29–30). Appellants additionally argue that the claims are necessarily tied to a machine and are thereby patent eligible. Appeal Br. 17–18 (citing Versata Dev. Grp., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Further, Appellant argues “Similar to the claims at issue in Core Wireless, the presently claimed solution provides an improved user interface, particularly in situations where real-estate on screens is limited.” Appeal Br. 19 (citing Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Appellant argues that the: claims provide the ability to trade financial instruments in a more efficient manner, without the overheard [sic] required by conventional independent matching. Moreover, the generation and transmission of the enriched trade report, in the format of an electronic file. Appeal Br 21 (citing Specification 18, ll. 31–19, ll. 2). The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to these arguments on pages 6 through 9 of the Answer. We have reviewed the Examiner response and concur with the Examiner and are not persuaded of error for the following additional reasons. Initially, we note Appellant’s arguments relying upon DDR Holdings are not commensurate with the scope of representative claim 1, which does not recite use of the internet. Appeal Br. 14. Further, we do not consider the Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 15 managing, displaying, and production of messages to be a technological improvement as was the case in DDR Holdings. In DDR Holdings, the claimed invention created a hybrid web page that combined advantageous elements from two web pages, bypassing the expected manner of sending a visitor to another party’s web page, in order to solve the internet-centric problem of retaining website visitors. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257–59. Here, as discussed above representative claim 1 recites steps which involve collecting data, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and are not related to an internet or computer centric issues. While the claim recites the collection of data involves interception of FIX messages without changing them, Appellant’s Specification identifies that FIX messages are of a known protocol, and intercepting the message is merely a step of receiving an the message. (See Specification 4, ll. 27–31 and 9, ll. 1–8). Thus, the claim is merely reciting using messages of a known protocol to gather data, not to solve a problem associated with the FIX protocol. As such Appellant’s arguments citing DDR Holdings have not persuaded us that the claims are necessarily rooted in computer technology. Appellant’s argument, relying on Enfish, and asserting that the claims are directed to an improvement in a computer technology have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. In Enfish, the invention was directed to a data structure which included a specifically defined means for configuring a logical data table that required a four-step algorithm to render the table self-referential. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. Further, the Enfish court found “the plain focus of the claims is on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 16 computer is used in its ordinary capacity.” Id. Here, Appellant’s Specification identifies that the manual process of managing the trade is an inefficient and time consuming process that can lead to errors, and that the claimed improvement is generating electronic reports. (See Specification 2, ll. 8–15 and 18, ll. 29–30). This alone is not sufficient to confer patent eligibility as an improvement in efficiency by use of a computer, and does not render it patent eligible. While the claimed system and method certainly purport to accelerate the process of analyzing audit log data, the speed increase comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, rather than the patented method itself. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”). FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the claims are eligible for being necessarily tied to a machine and the arguments which rely upon Core Wireless. As discussed above representative claim 1 recites an abstract concept, and using a computer to improve efficiency in the implementation of the idea. Thus, we do not consider the claim to be eligible for being necessarily tied to a machine but rather reciting using a computer as a tool to implement the idea. Further, the claim is unlike the claims at issue in Core Wireless. In Core Wireless the court held that the claims which recited an interface were patent eligible as the claims recited specific limitations of the interface such as: an application summary that can be reached through a menu, the data being in a list and being selectable to launch an application, and additional limitations directed to the actual user Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 17 interface displayed and how it functions. Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363. The court found that the claims were directed to an improved user interface and not the abstract concept of an index as the claim “limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer.” Id.; see also Trading Techs. Int’l Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (nonprecedential) (holding that a user interface with a prescribed functionality directly related the interface’s structure that is addressed to and resolves a problem in the art is patent eligible). Here Appellant’s asserted improvement, as discussed above is to the content of the data displayed and the efficiency gained by using computers, not an improvement to the user interface. “[M]erely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display” has been found not to provide significantly more for purposes of finding patent eligibility. Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG “purportedly new arrangement of generic information that assists [users] in processing information more quickly” does not confer patent- eligibility. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d at 1093. Thus, Appellant’s arguments that the invention is rooted in computer technology and improve a computer technology have not persuaded us. We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and thus is directed to a judicial exception. Significantly More than the Abstract Idea Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, if a claim: (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, we then look to whether the claim adds a specific limitation Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 18 beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or, simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Appellant argues the claims recite significantly more as the claim elements of a “central utility,” “receiving trade messages sent over the network,” and “generat[ing], via the central utility, an electronic file” are “patentably distinct from the cited references.”6 Appeal Br. 22–23 (alteration in original). Further, Appellant argues the claims taken as a whole are directed to patent eligible subject matter as they require a fundamental change to data that cannot be performed in the human mind. Appeal Br. 24–25. Appellant asserts that the present invention “improves efficiency and the flow of information. Furthermore, the utilization of preapproved rules allows for the bypass of entire steps, thus drastically improving the functioning of the computer and improving efficiency.” Appeal Br. 26. Appellant asserts the claims pose no risk of preemption. Appeal Br. 26–28. Finally, Appellant argues, the Examiner has not presented proof that the claim elements are a combination of well- understood, routine, and conventional elements as required by Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Appeal Br 29–31. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to these arguments by Appellant’s on pages 9 through 12 of the Answer. We have reviewed the Examiner response and concur with the Examiner and are not persuaded of error for the following additional reasons. 6 We note there are no cited references in the rejection before us. Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 19 Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in considering the claims to not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Appellant’s arguments that the claim limitations to: a central utility, receiving messages over a network and generating an electronic file define over the cited references is not persuasive of error. Appeal Br. 22–23. This argument is a predicated upon application of prior art which is not required as part of the patent eligibility analysis. Although the second step in the Alice/Mayo analysis includes a search for an inventive concept, the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a search for “an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). A novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent-ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. 66 at 90 (rejecting the suggestion that Sections 102, 103, and 112 might perform the appropriate screening function and noting that in Mayo such an approach “would make the ‘law of nature’ exception . . . a dead letter”). Further, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claims require a fundamental change to data which cannot be performed in the human mind and that it improves efficiency and flow of information. Appeal Br. 24–26. As discussed above we consider the claims to merely recite using a computer to implement an abstract mental process. Appellant has not identified a disclosure in the Specification that the format of the data improves the efficiency of the computer, rather just the efficiency in which the trade (part of the abstract idea) is performed. As discussed above a “purportedly new arrangement of generic information that assists [users] in Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 20 processing information more quickly” does not confer patent- eligibility. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d at 1093. Further, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has not shown that the additional elements are a combination of well-understood, routine, and conventional elements. Appeal Br. 29–31. As discussed above the Examiner finds that the additional limitations of a computer, processor, and memory are generic computers performing basic functions of storing, retrieving, processing, and displaying. Final Act 6. Appellant’s Specification identifies the “the central utility 100 can be embodied in a conventional server/database product, such as a rack server with support for 15 database applications.” Specification 8, ll. 13–15. Appellant’s Specification discusses the transmission and reception of information over a network in accordance with known methods. Specification 9, ll. 4–7. Thus, Appellant’s Specification provides evidence to support the Examiner’s finding that the recited additional elements of computers, processors, memory, transmitters, and receivers are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements. We further note that claim 1 also recites the additional element of a user interface, however we consider this to be a conventional element as our reviewing court has often considered a user interface to be a generic computer element. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Finally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that claim 1 does not preempt the abstract concept. Our reviewing court has said “[w]here a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, . . . , preemption concerns are Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 21 fully addressed and made moot.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In summary, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s determination that representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the form of a mental process and a method of organizing human activity as it relates commercial interactions relating to behaviors and business relations. Further, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that the claim is not directed to an improvement in the functioning of the computer or to other technology or other technical field; directed to a particular machine; directed to performing or affecting a transformation of an article to a different state or thing; or directed to using a judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond linking the exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the judicial exception. For these reasons, we are unpersuaded that the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do the claims add a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional.” See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1, and claims 2 through 4, 6, 8 through 12, 14 through 18, 20 through 28, 30, and 32 through 39 grouped with claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, that is not integrated into a practical application, and does not include an inventive concept. Appeal 2019-002598 Application 14/446,217 22 CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6, 8 through 12, 14 through 18, 20 through 28, 30, and 32 through 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In summary: Claim Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 6, 8– 12, 14–18, 20–28, 30, 32–39 101 Eligibility 1–4, 6, 8– 12, 14–18, 20–28, 30, 32–39 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation