Fred Greenstein

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 30, 2019

14172361 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/172,361 02/04/2014 Fred Greenstein 3069/4 CON 5120
7590 07/30/2019
Joe Dunn
iJoin Solutions LLC
12431 Canolder Street
Raleigh, NC 27614
EXAMINER
TINKLER, MURIEL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3692
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FRED GREENSTEIN
____________

Appeal 2018-006280
Application 14/172,3611
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, 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 23–26, 29, and 30. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We affirm.

1 Appellant identifies as the real party in interest as iJoin Solutions, LLC.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-006280
Application 14/172,361

2

THE INVENTION
Appellant states the “present invention relates to a device and method
for assisting in financial planning and investment.” Spec. 1.
Claim 23, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
23. A method for transactional decision making, the method
comprising:
at a user device comprising a hardware processor and
memory:
communicating, using a real-time communication
protocol, with a first server via a wireless connection for
accessing instructional information stored thereon to enroll in a
first retirement account of a plurality of privately hosted
retirement accounts;
connecting, via the first server and wireless connection,
to a second server that is remote from the first server, the
second server having a secure transactional infrastructure
hosted by a third party financial service provider;
receiving, in real-time, private financial information via
the secure transactional infrastructure without the private
financial information being transferred to the first server,
wherein the private financial information is communicated
using the real-time communication protocol, and wherein the
real-time communication protocol is adaptable to multiple
different third party financial service provider data formats
thereby utilizing the existing secure transactional infrastructure
to perform one or more actions;
displaying the instructional information from the first
server; and
instructing the second server to perform the one or more
actions, in real-time, using the real-time communication
protocol;
wherein a first action comprises enrolling, in real-time, in
the first retirement account using the instructional information
obtained from the first server and the private financial
information received from the secure transactional
Appeal 2018-006280
Application 14/172,361

3

infrastructure managed by the third party financial service
provider;
wherein a second action comprises allocating monetary
resources, in real-time, to the first retirement account via the
user device; and
wherein the first retirement account comprises an
individual retirement account (IRA), a Roth IRA, a 401(k)
account, a 403(b) account, or a 507 retirement plan.

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 23–26, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or
35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
written description requirement.
Claims 23–26, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings as set forth on pages 3–8 in the
Examiner’s Answer, concerning only the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection.

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 23–26, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply
with the written description requirement. Specifically the Examiner finds:
The specification does not disclose that the Applicant stated or
even suggested the use of an additional real-time
communication protocol that was adaptable to multiple
different third-party financial service providers. Instead, the
specification discloses on page 12 (lines 10-15), “the general
Appeal 2018-006280
Application 14/172,361

4

purpose handheld computing devices... not requiring any
wireless communication other than the router”. Additionally,
the specification discloses that the computing device/user
device and the first server can be connected to a network (i.e.
Internet, page 5, line 20 through page 6, line 10). In other
words, the specification discloses that the invention uses
whatever existing protocol(s)/software run on the network.
(Answer 3).
Appellant argues that:
Support for this portion of each independent claim, namely the
real-time communication protocol that utilizes existing secure
transactional infrastructure can be found, for example, on page
15, line 10 of the original application. As noted in this line of
the application, the instant invention is improved, as it avoids
data transfer and security complexities by accessing existing,
secure websites.
Further, page 12, lines 5-9 of the original application
describe computers 130 and 130’ as being in signal
communication with the router so that each participant can
access their plan provider or administrators website during the
enrollment session. Page 14, lines 4-10 expands on the nature
of the communication that accesses their plan provider website,
by describing users being connected to websites, and exploiting
the infrastructure by connecting participants to a slimmed down
version of the provider sites. Thus, the communicator protocol
or software connects to existing infrastructure, in real-time, to
access private information. By virtue of the communication
protocol, the private information is obtained from a server on a
LAN, WAN or the Internet, as well as computer readable media
collocated [sic] with the first computer, such as from memory,
hard drive, USB flash drive, portable digital media, such as a
CD-ROM, and the like as described on page 8, lines 4-10.

App. Br. 18–19.
We agree with the Examiner that the Specification fails to convey
with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date
Appeal 2018-006280
Application 14/172,361

5

sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. Vas-
Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). At best,
the Specification describes adapting provider sites to “slimmed down”
devices, i.e., “[t]he instant invention exploits this infrastructure, and more
preferably connects participants to a slimmed down version of provider sites
designed for the small screen on hand held computer device 130.”
Spec. 14:8–10. We do not see how this statement conveys, “using a real-
time communication protocol; the real-time communication protocol is
adaptable to multiple different third party financial service provider data
formats…; and, instructing the second server to perform the one or more
actions, in real-time, using the real-time communication protocol.” Here,
the Specification describes a desired effect, without mention of the specific
way this is accomplished. Therefore, we sustain Examiner’s rejection of
claims 23–26, 29, and 30 under this section.

35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION
We will affirm the rejection of claims 23–26, 29, and 30 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.2
The Appellant argues independent claims 23 and 30 together, and
does not present separate arguments for the dependent claims. See App.
Br. 10–18. Therefore, we select claim 23 as the representative claim, and
the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 23. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2015).

2 This analysis is based on the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection presented in the
Answer dated Oct. 12, 2016.
Appeal 2018-006280
Application 14/172,361

6

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 Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
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
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
Appeal 2018-006280
Application 14/172,361

7

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., id. at 187 (“It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (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. (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.
Appeal 2018-006280
Application 14/172,361

8

The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. 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 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.’” Enfish, 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
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.
Appeal 2018-006280
Application 14/172,361

9

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 at
53; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
The Specification states:
Most employees in the United States, and elsewhere, cannot
afford to retire strictly on social security benefits paid by the
government. While in previous generations many private sector
employees received defined benefit pension income after a
number of years of service, this practice has largely been
supplanted by employers making defined periodic contribution
to a retirement plan, which the employees are encouraged to
supplement with their own pretax savings in a 401(k) plan or
the like. Generally, the employees must make both individual
contribution decisions, as well as investment risk and allocation
decisions from a basket of instruments that may include mutual
funds, group annuities, asset allocation portfolios, ETF’s,
collective trusts, or other managed accounts.
Spec. 1:15–22, 2:1–3. The Specification further states:
A recently introduced improvement has been to offer more
specific advice and assistance where meeting participants can
actually make enrollment and allocation choices during such a
meeting, with the option of exploring different investing
scenarios with their own financial data. This is accomplished by
providing each participant with a handheld display that includes
a general purpose computer (such as pocket PC’s) so that they
can privately access their own financial and account data and
follow the presenter’s instructions to the entire audience. While
it would be possible to preload each such display device with
the private financial data before the meeting, this would be time
intensive and involve tracking each device so that it is goes to
Appeal 2018-006280
Application 14/172,361

10

the correct participant so that privacy of financial and account
information is not compromised.
Spec. 3: 11–19.
The preamble states it is “for transactional decision making.” Claim
1. Understood in light of the Specification, claim 1, recites, in pertinent part,
communicating, using a real-time communication
protocol, . . . accessing instructional information stored thereon
to enroll in a first retirement account of a plurality of privately
hosted retirement accounts;
connecting, . . . a third party financial service provider;
receiving, in real-time, private financial information . . .
without the private financial information being transferred . . .,
wherein the private financial information is communicated
using the real-time communication protocol, and wherein the
real-time communication protocol is adaptable to multiple
different third party financial service provider data formats
thereby utilizing the existing secure transactional infrastructure
to perform one or more actions;
displaying the instructional information . . .; and . . .
perform the one or more actions, in real-time, using the real-
time communication protocol;
wherein a first action comprises enrolling, in real-time, in
the first retirement account using the instructional information .
. . the private financial information received from the secure
transactional infrastructure managed by the third party financial
service provider;
wherein a second action comprises allocating monetary
resources, in real-time, to the first retirement account . . .; and
wherein the first retirement account comprises an
individual retirement account (IRA), a Roth IRA, a 401(k)
account, a 403(b) account, or a 507 retirement plan.

Accordingly, the Examiner found that the claims are directed to
“communicating, connecting, receiving, displaying, instructing, enrolling
and allocating. This is simply the organizing and comparison of data, which
Appeal 2018-006280
Application 14/172,361

11

can be performed mentally.” (Answer 6). The Examiner also found that
“the claims are directed to assisting in financial decision planning and
investment.” Id.
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to both a mental
process and a fundamental economic principle, because claim 1 recites at
least, “private financial information via the secure transactional
infrastructure without the private financial information being transferred”
and “allocating monetary resources, in real-time, to the first retirement
account.” As to the former finding, separating one kind of information from
other information in data is a mental process, which is patent ineligible.
Guidance 84 Fed. Reg. 52, citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 218–220. As to the
latter finding, allocating money to a retirement account is a form of saving
which is a fundamental economic practice which is itself a certain method of
organizing human activity, likewise patent ineligible. Id.
Turning to the second prong of the “directed to” test, claim 1 only
generically requires “a user device,” “hardware processor and memory,” “a
first server and wireless connection,” and “a second server.” These
components are described in the Specification at a high level of generality.
See Spec. 7: 7–21, 8:1–22, 9:1–15, Figs. 1–3. 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 find that the claims recite the judicial exception of a mental
process and a fundamental economic principle that are not integrated into a
practical application.
Appeal 2018-006280
Application 14/172,361

12

That the claims do not preempt all forms of the abstraction or may be
limited to secure account access, 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:

The elements of the instant process, when taken in
combination, together do not offer substantially more than the
sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone.
That is, the elements involved in the recited process undertake
their roles in performance of their activities according to their
generic functionalities which are well-understood, routine and
conventional. The elements together execute in routinely and
conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with
their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which,
similarly, is merely the combined and coordinated execution of
generic computer functionalities which are well-understood,
routine and conventional activities previously known to the
industry.
(Answer 8).
We agree with the Examiner. “[T]he relevant question is whether the
claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the
Appeal 2018-006280
Application 14/172,361

13

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 communicate, connect, retrieve, display, instruct, and apply
decision criteria to data to generate a result, amounts to electronic data query
and transmit same 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 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
(communicate, connect, retrieve, display, instruct, and apply decision criteria
to data to generate 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,
Appeal 2018-006280
Application 14/172,361

14

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 ideas of a fundamental economic practice
and a commercial or legal interaction 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
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (App. Br. 10–17). 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:
The claims focus on hardware and software that improves the
security and efficiency of the computer capabilities. For
example, independent claims 23 and 30 recite communicating,
using a real-time communication protocol with a first server
and connecting, via the first server and wireless connection, to a
second server that is remote from the first server, the second
server having a secure transactional infrastructure hosted by a
third party financial service provider. As described on page 14
of the instant specification, the claimed invention exploits
existing infrastructure and connects participants to a slimmed
down version of provider sites. This avoids data transfer issues
and obviates the need to develop and customize solutions for
each employer or plan.
Appeal 2018-006280
Application 14/172,361

15

(App. Br. 11) (emphasis omitted).
That the language also includes a general reference to the use of a
“real-time communication protocol,” does not make the corresponding
generic recitations of the claimed basic hardware processor, memory and
first and second servers effective as to integrate the judicial exception in a
way 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. Absent evidence to the contrary,
we view the “real time communication protocol” to be only an indication of
the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced.
MPEP 2106.05(h) concern[s] generally linking use of a judicial
exception to a particular technological environment or field of
use, including a discussion of the exemplars provided herein,
which are based on Bilski, 561 U.S. at 612, and Flook, 437 U.S.
at 588-90. Thus, the mere application of an abstract method of
organizing human activity in a particular field is not sufficient
to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Guidance at 53 n.32 (emphasis omitted); see also Alice, 573
U.S. at 223.
Appellant further argues,
Independent claims 23 and 30 further recite receiving, in
real-time, private financial information via the secure
transactional infrastructure without the private financial
information being transferred to the first server, wherein the
private financial information is communicated using the real-
time communication protocol that s [sic] adaptable to multiple
different third party financial service provider data formats
thereby utilizing the existing secure transactional infrastructure
to perform one or more actions. Again, independent claims 23
and 30 each focus on the improvements in technology, and the
ability to communicate in real-time (e.g., thereby complying
with SEC and ERISA rules) and without having to transfer
Appeal 2018-006280
Application 14/172,361

16

private, secure financial information that is accessed via
existing service provider sites.
App. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted).
We disagree with Appellant. As found supra, formatting data and or
separating one kind of information from other information is a mental
process. “[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (emphasis omitted) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90).
Appellant also argues,
Performing financial transactions using private financial
information at one server without having to transfer the private
financial information is novel, inventive (as acknowledged by
the Examiner on the record, see the last paragraph appearing on
page 6 of the Office Action) and improves the security and
efficiency of the computing capabilities.
App. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted).
We disagree with Appellant. “The ‘novelty’ of any element or steps
in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining
whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of
possibly patentable subject matter.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89.
Appellant lists various claim limitations (App. Br. 13–14) as examples
of improvements without providing evidence that they are improvements in
the computer as contrasted with a mental process and a fundamental
economic principle. Although machine-based computing platforms 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 TLI
Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612–13 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a
Appeal 2018-006280
Application 14/172,361

17

generic telephone for its intended purpose was a well–established “basic
concept” sufficient to fall under Alice step 1.).
To the extent Appellant is arguing that the merely generically recited
additional elements 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 are further unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claims
here are not directed to the “organizing and comparing data” characteristics
found in Cyberfone3 and SmartGene.4 (Appeal Br. 17). Claim 1 in
Cyberfone recited “a plurality of different exploded data transactions for the
single transmission” which resulted in the Court holding, that “the idea of
collecting information in classified form, then separating and transmitting
that information according to its classification, is an abstract idea that is not
patent-eligible.” Cyberfone, 558 F. App’x at 990, 992. Similarly, in
SmartGene, claim 1 which recited generating “advisory information for one

3 Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 F. App’x 988
(Fed. Cir. 2014).
4 SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 F. App’x 950 (Fed.
Cir. 2014).
Appeal 2018-006280
Application 14/172,361

18

or more therapeutic treatment regimens in said ranked listing” was held to be
a mental process. SmartGene, 555 F. App’x at 955. Likewise, we have
found above, the claims here are directed to a mental process because. like
the claims in Cyberfone and SmartGene, the claims here require collecting
(“receiving in real time”) and organizing (format adaption) of information.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 23–26, 29,
and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 23-26. 29.
and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a).

DECISION
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED