FIDESSA TRADING UK LIMITED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 16, 2020

2019002598 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 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.
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