Fred GreensteinDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 30, 201914172361 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2019) 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. 14/172,361 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation