INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 10, 2022

2020006368 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2022)

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. 15/345,550 11/08/2016 Francisco M. Anaya CA920160058US1 2210 105678 7590 01/10/2022 IBM Corp. - Fishkill Drafting Center 2455 South Road M/S P386, Bldg. 008-2 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 EXAMINER PAULINO, LENIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2193 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/10/2022 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): fdciplaw@us.ibm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRANCISCO M. ANAYA, TOM C.L. CHEN, MICHAEL S. FULTON, and TRONG TRUONG Appeal 2020-006368 Application 15/345,550 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LARRY J. HUME, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-10, which are all claims pending in the application. Appellant has canceled claims 4 and 11-25. See Appeal Br. 16 et seq. (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-006368 Application 15/345,550 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 The claimed subject matter is directed to “Identifying Incorrect Variable Values in Software Testing and Development Environments.” See Spec. (Title). Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed invention “relate[] generally to the field of software product development, and more particularly to identifying incorrect variable values in a software program or application that may result in software bugs (e.g., errors or other defects). Spec. ¶ 1. Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on Appeal (bracketed labeling and italics added to particular limitations for ease of reference): 1. A method comprising: [L1] executing, by one or more computer processors, a test suite to test a computer program for a plurality of variables; collecting, by the one or more computer processors, a variable value for each variable of the plurality of variables at a predetermined location of the computer program for a test included in the test suite; determining, by the one or more computer processors, whether the test included in the test suite is successful; 2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Apr. 13, 2020; Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sept. 10, 2020); Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 10, 2020); Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Nov. 15, 2019); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed Aug. 8, 2016). Appeal 2020-006368 Application 15/345,550 3 responsive to determining that the test is successful, recording, by the one or more computer processors, the variable value as part of a success value set; responsive to determining the test is not successful, recording, by the one or more computer processors, the variable value as part of a failure value set; [L2] calculating, by the one or more computer processors, a confidence metric for the variable value, wherein the confidence metric indicates a level of certainty in the correctness of the variable value and the calculating of the confidence metric comprises: responsive to encountering an assertion statement during the testing of the computer program, executing, by the one or more computer processors, the assertion statement; responsive to determining that an expression of the assertion statement evaluates to true, identifying, by the one or more computer processors, a first variable associated with the expression of the assertion statement and identifying a first variable value of the first variable; responsive to determining that the expression of the assertion statement evaluates to false, transforming, by the one or more computer processors, the expression of the assertion statement to its logical negation, identifying the first variable associated with the logical negation of the expression of the assertion statement, and identifying the first variable value; responsive to encountering a function exit during the testing of the computer program, determining, by the one or more computer processors, whether the first variable is within a scope of the function exit; responsive to determining that the first variable is within the scope of the function exit, incrementing, by the one or more computer processors, a confidence counter assigned to the first variable value; and Appeal 2020-006368 Application 15/345,550 4 responsive to determining that a write statement is encountered during the testing of the computer program, no longer incrementing, by the one or more computer processors, the confidence counter assigned to the first variable value; [L3] measuring, by the one or more computer processors, a relevance metric for each variable of the plurality of variables; and [L4] presenting, by the one or more computer processors, the failure value set, the success value set, the confidence metric for the variable value, and the relevance metric for each variable of the plurality of variables. Related Appeal This application is related to U.S. Application No. 15/670,454, Appeal No. 2020-006344, in which the Examiner’s rejection was reversed contemporaneously with this Appeal. REJECTION Claims 1-3 and 5-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more. Final Act. 3. ISSUE Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 6-14; Reply Br. 3-9) the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent- ineligible subject matter is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Appeal 2020-006368 Application 15/345,550 5 Under the USPTO’s Revised Guidance, informed by our governing case law concerning 35 U.S.C. § 101, is claim 1 patent-eligible under § 101 because, as argued by Appellant, the claims are directed to an improvement in software development and testing technology carried out by monitoring variable values generated during program execution that allows a user to determine a reason a computer program “crashes,” or experiences a “bug?” PRINCIPLES OF LAW A. 35 U.S.C. § 101 An invention is patent-eligible if it is a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.3 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. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012) (brackets in original) (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981)). 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. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75-77). 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 3 This threshold analysis of whether a claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, is referred to as “Step 1” in the USPTO’s patent- eligibility analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 101. MPEP § 2106. Appeal 2020-006368 Application 15/345,550 6 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” (Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof 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))). Abstract ideas may include, but are not limited to, fundamental economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-21. Under this guidance, we must therefore ensure at step one that we articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful. Id. at 217 (“[W]e tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.”). Examples of claims that do not recite mental processes because they cannot be practically performed in the human mind include: (a) a claim to a method for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an Appeal 2020-006368 Application 15/345,550 7 absolute time of reception of satellite signals, where the claimed GPS receiver calculated pseudoranges that estimated the distance from the GPS receiver to a plurality of satellites, SiRF Technology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 601 F.3d 1319, 1331-33 (Fed. Cir. 2010); (b) a claim to detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets, SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019); (c) a claim to a specific data encryption method for computer communication involving a several-step manipulation of data, Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (distinguishing TQP Development, LLC v. Intuit Inc., 2014 WL 651935 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2014)) (the specific data encryption method “could not conceivably be performed in the human mind or with pencil and paper”). Whereas a claim limitation to a process that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” qualifies as a mental process, a claim limitation that “could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind” (even if aided with pen and paper) would not qualify as a mental process.4 In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held “[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 4 CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 1375- 76 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Appeal 2020-006368 Application 15/345,550 8 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. (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.”). 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 Revised Guidance In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published revised guidance on the application of § 101.5 The Manual of 5 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter “Revised Guidance”) (https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2019-01-07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf). In response to formal public comments, the Office issued further guidance on October 17, 2019, Appeal 2020-006368 Application 15/345,550 9 Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) now incorporates this revised guidance and subsequent updates at Section 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020).6 Under MPEP § 2106, 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) (“Step 2A, Prong One,” referred to herein as “Step 2A(i)”); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (“Step 2A, Prong Two,” referred to herein as “Step 2A(ii)”).7 MPEP § 2106.04(a)) and § 2106.04(d). Under this guidance, if the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or subject matter within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas above), then the claim is patent- clarifying the Revised Guidance. USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October 2019 Update”). “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 51; see also October 2019 Update at 1. 6 All references to the MPEP are to the Ninth Edition, Revision 10, 2019 (Last Revised June 2020), unless otherwise indicated. 7 “Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I supra, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h).” MPEP § 2106.04(d)II. Appeal 2020-006368 Application 15/345,550 10 eligible at Step 2A(i). This determination concludes the eligibility analysis, except in situations identified in the Revised Guidance.8 Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application,9 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; 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.10 MPEP § 2106.05(d). In the Step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the 8 In the rare circumstance in which an examiner believes a claim limitation that does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should nonetheless be treated as reciting an abstract idea, the procedure described in the MPEP for analyzing the claim should be followed. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3)(“Tentative Abstract Ideas”). 9 This corresponds to Alice part one where it is determined whether the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219. If a claim is “not directed to an abstract idea under part one of the Alice framework, we do not need to proceed to step two.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 10 Items (3) and (4) correspond to Alice part two where it is determined whether the claim contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application” (Alice, 573 U.S. at 221) and continue to be collectively referred to as “Step 2B” of the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Appeal 2020-006368 Application 15/345,550 11 examiner finds an evidentiary basis, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following: 1. A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). . . . 2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well- understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). 3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). . . . 4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). . . . See MPEP §§ 2106.05(d)(I)(2); 2106.07(a). If the Examiner or the Board determines under Step 2B that the element (or combination of elements) amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claim is eligible, thereby concluding the eligibility analysis. However, if a determination is made that the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claim is ineligible under Step 2B, and the claim should be rejected for lack of subject matter eligibility. Appeal 2020-006368 Application 15/345,550 12 ANALYSIS Step 1 - Statutory Category Claim 1, as a method (process) claim, recites one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, the issue before us is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2A(i): Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception? The Examiner determined that claim 1 is directed to mental processes. Final Act. 3.11 Claims 1 and 11 recites collecting a variable value, determining whether a test is successful, recording variable values as part of a success value set, recording variable values as part of a failure value set, calculating a confidence metric, measuring a relevance metric, presenting the failure value set, the success value set, the confidence metric for the variable value and the relevance metric for each variable of the plurality of variables. The limitation of collecting a variable value, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “[program instructions],” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed mentally. 11 We note the Examiner’s § 101 analysis in the Final Action was deficient by not utilizing the subject matter eligibility framework set forth by the Director in the Revised Guidance, now incorporated into the MPEP. See generally, Final Act. Moreover, the Examiner’s analysis in the Answer, while appearing to acknowledge the Revised Guidance, is deficient by incorrectly applying such guidance to Step 2A(ii) (abstract idea integrated into a practical application), and omitting the required Berkheimer analysis in Step 2B (“significantly more”). Appeal 2020-006368 Application 15/345,550 13 For example, but for the “[program instructions]” language, “collecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually collecting variable values at predetermined locations. Furthermore the limitation of determining whether a test is successful, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “[program instructions,]” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “program instructions” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually checking whether a test passed or failed. Similarly the limitations of recording a variable value as part of a success value set or recording a variable value as part of a failure value set, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “[program instructions,]” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed mentally. For example, but for the “[program instructions]” language, “recording” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually writing down variable values to different sets with respect to whether they have succeeded or failed. The limitation of calculating a confidence metric and measuring a relevance metric, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “[program instructions,]” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed mentally. Final Act. 3-4. Appeal 2020-006368 Application 15/345,550 14 We conclude claim 1 does not recite the judicial exceptions of either natural phenomena or laws of nature. The first issue is whether claim 1 recites an abstract idea based upon the Revised Guidance.12 First, we look to the Specification to provide context as to what the claimed invention is directed to. In this case, the Specification discloses “[t]he present invention relates generally to the field of software product development, and more particularly to identifying incorrect variable values in a software program or application that may result in software bugs (e.g., errors or other defects).” Spec. ¶ 1. Appellant’s Abstract describes the invention as: A test suite is executed to test a computer program for a plurality of variables. A variable value is generated for each variable of the plurality of variables at a predetermined location of the computer program. Whether a test included in the test suite is successful is determined. If the test is successful, the variable value is recorded as part of a success value set. If the test is not successful, the variable value is recorded as part of a failure value set. A confidence metric is calculated for the variable value. A relevance metric for each variable of the 12 Our reviewing court recognizes that “[a]n abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016). That need not and, in this case does not, “impact the patentability analysis.” Id. at 1241. Further, “[t]he Board’s slight revision of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the patentability analysis.” Id. Moreover, merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co. Ltd., 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). Appeal 2020-006368 Application 15/345,550 15 plurality of variables is measured, based on a Jaccard distance between the success value set and the failure value set. The failure value set, the success value set, the confidence metric for the variable value, and the relevance metric for each variable of the plurality of variables are presented. Spec. 38 (Abstract). Thus, we find the technological field of the claimed invention is software product development technology. Appellant argues the claim limitations “do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations.” Appeal Br. 9-10 (quoting October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, p. 7, now incorporated into MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) (“A Claim With Limitation(s) That Cannot Practically be Performed in the Human Mind Does Not Recite a Mental Process”). Appellant cites SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295 (Fed Cir. 2019) (“SRI”) in support of their contention. Appeal Br. 10- 11. In SRI, the claims were held to not recite a mental process because they could not practically be performed in the human mind because the claims are concerned with network packet data which were too numerous to practically analyze in the human mind. For purposes of our Decision, notwithstanding the Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s contentions, we assume the claim limitations recite abstract ideas and/or pre- or extra-solution activity, so that we can proceed to what we determine to be the dispositive issue under Step 2A(ii), i.e., Appeal 2020-006368 Application 15/345,550 16 integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, as argued by Appellant. See Appeal Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 4-10.13 Step 2A(ii): Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application? Because we assume for purposes of this Decision that the claims recite a judicial exception, we proceed to the “practical application” Step 2A(ii) in which we determine whether the recited judicial exception, e.g., mental processes, is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Appellant argues “the Examiner’s analysis fails to appreciate the specific step recited in independent claim 1 for a executing a test suite to test a computer program and detailed steps for calculating of the confidence metric,” Appeal Br. 8, and “the Examiner has individually considered fewer than all of the claim recitals, failing to consider the claim as a whole.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant further argues, “[c]laim 1 is directed to an improvement in software development and testing technology.” Appeal Br. 10. “Claim 1 monitors variable values generated during program execution on a computer to allow a user to determine which variable values are likely to be responsible for the program behaving incorrectly.” Id. 13 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”). Appeal 2020-006368 Application 15/345,550 17 Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we determine the following limitations of claim 1, while possibly reciting one or more abstract ideas and/or pre or post-solution activity, nonetheless integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application when the claim is considered as a whole. [L1] executing, by one or more computer processors, a test suite to test a computer program for a plurality of variables; [L2] calculating, by the one or more computer processors, a confidence metric for the variable value, wherein the confidence metric indicates a level of certainty in the correctness of the variable value; [L3] measuring, by the one or more computer processors, a relevance metric for each variable of the plurality of variables; [and] [L4] presenting, by the one or more computer processors, the failure value set, the success value set, the confidence metric for the variable value, and the relevance metric for each variable of the plurality of variables. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude limitations L1 through L4 integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as determined under at least one of the MPEP sections cited above.14 We find these limitations integrate the various abstract ideas of “determining,” “measuring,” and “calculating” of claim 1 into a practical application of these mental/mathematical processes in order to “identify[] incorrect variable values in a software program or application that may result in software bugs (e.g., errors or other defects).” Spec. ¶ 1. Our finding is consistent with Appellant’s argument that “[c]laim 1 is directed to an 14 See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.05(a) “Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field,” and § 2106.05(e) “Other Meaningful Limitations.” Appeal 2020-006368 Application 15/345,550 18 improvement in software development and testing technology. Claim 1 monitors variable values generated during program execution on a computer to allow a user to determine which variable values are likely to be responsible for the program behaving incorrectly.” Appeal Br. 10. Furthermore, Appellant persuasively argues, “[e]xecuting ‘a test suite to test a computer program’ is not insignificant pre-solution activity. To the contrary, the activity is significant. In addition, the executing operation integrates the claimed invention into a practical solution. The collecting ‘a variable value for each variable of the plurality of variables at a predetermined location of the computer program for a test included in the test suite’ is not generic, pre-solution data collection.” Reply Br. 8. We find Appellant’s argument persuasive that carrying out limitations L1 through L4 provide improvements to the underlying technology or technical field, namely, software product development technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(a) or, alternatively, § 2106.05(e) “Other Meaningful Limitations.” With respect to these other meaningful limitations, we find guidance in MPEP § 2106.05(e), which summarizes and relies upon the Supreme Court’s holding in Diehr, cited supra, and our reviewing court’s holdings in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (decision on remand from the Supreme Court, which had vacated the lower court’s prior holding of ineligibility in view of Bilski v. Kappos). In Diehr, the Court evaluated the additional non-abstract limitations, and found them to be meaningful, because they sufficiently limited the use of the (abstract idea) mathematical equation to the practical application of Appeal 2020-006368 Application 15/345,550 19 molding rubber products. MPEP § 2106.05(e) (citing Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184, 187). In Classen, the Federal Circuit held that, although the analysis step was an abstract mental process that collected and compared known information, the (practical application) immunization step was meaningful because it integrated the results of the analysis into a specific and tangible method that resulted in the method “moving from abstract scientific principle to specific application.” MPEP § 2106.05(e) (citing Classen, 659 F.3d at 1066-68). We find these other meaningful limitations identified above provide a technological improvement to software product development technology systems. Appeal Br. 10 Accordingly, we conclude, when the claim is considered as a whole, the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application as determined under either MPEP sections 2106.06(a) or 2106.05(e) cited above, such that the claim is patent-eligible. Because the claims are directed to a patent-eligible concept, this concludes the patent-eligibility inquiry. Therefore, based upon the findings and legal conclusions above, on this record and in consideration of the Revised Guidance, we are persuaded the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter, such that we do not sustain the § 101 rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-10, which stand therewith. Appeal 2020-006368 Application 15/345,550 20 CONCLUSION We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections. More specifically, under our Revised Guidance, governed by relevant case law, Appellant has persuasively argued that claims 1-3 and 5-10 are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and we do not sustain the rejection. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 5-10 101 Eligibility 1-3, 5-10 REVERSED