International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 21, 2022

2020005338 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 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. 15/440,714 02/23/2017 Luca Balestrazzi DE920160191US1 6810 45725 7590 03/21/2022 Walder Intellectual Property Law PC 445 Crestover Circle Richardson, TX 75080 EXAMINER MACASIANO, JOANNE GONZALES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2194 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/21/2022 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 LUCA BALESTRAZZI, FABIO DE ANGELIS, ANDREA NAPOLEONI, and STEFANO SIDOTI Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 Technology Center 2100 BEFORE JEREMY J. CURCURI, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies International Business Machines Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “[s]oftware development estimating based on functional areas.” Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, in a data processing system, for managing a development of a software program, the method comprising: detecting, by an analyzer in the data processing system, a completion of one or more development tasks of the software program; identifying, by the analyzer, one or more software artifacts from a plan repository relating to each of the one or more development tasks of the software program; retrieving, by the analyzer, one or more development parameters of each of the one or more software artifacts from a test repository, wherein the development parameters of each of the one or more software artifacts comprise an implementation time and a test time; associating, by the analyzer, each of the one or more software artifacts with one or more functional areas of the software program; calculating, by an estimator in the data processing system, one or more development parameters of each of the one or more functional areas of the software program according to the one or more development parameters of each of the one or more software artifacts associated with a functional area; receiving, by the analyzer, a functional specification of the software program to be developed; associating, by the analyzer, the functional specification of the software program with one or more selected functional areas of the one or more functional areas of the software program according to a comparison of the functional Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 3 specification with corresponding identification information of the one or more functional areas of the software program; estimating, by the estimator, one or more development parameters of the functional specification according to the one or more development parameters of the one or more selected functional areas; and outputting, by a planner in the data processing system, an indication of the one or more development parameters of the functional specification for managing a development thereof. REJECTION Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Final Act. 3-5. PRINCIPLES OF LAW 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 Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 4 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, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267-68 (1854))); 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 192 (“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) 187 (“It is now commonplace Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 5 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. The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under that 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 interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see 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: Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 6 (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 Memorandum. OPINION The Judicial Exception Rejection of Claims 1-20 The Examiner determines the claims recite the abstract idea of mental processes. Final Act. 3-4; see also Ans. 8-10. The Examiner further determines “[t]his judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.” Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 10-13. The Examiner further determines “[t]he claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.” Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 13-14. Appellant presents the following principal arguments: The claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 6-21. “[T]he rejection is just a conclusion somehow based on an oversimplification and generalization of the claim, not an analysis or evaluation of the actual claimed features.” Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 2-5. The claims are not directed to mental processes because “the claimed invention provides for managing a development of a software program based on the particular ordered combination of computer operations set forth in the claim.” Appeal Br. 10. The claimed invention “is specifically a computer process that can only be performed within a computing system and thus, is a Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 7 technological process.” Appeal Br. 11. “[T]he claimed invention is reciting an improved computer tool that is specifically configured to manage a development of a software program.” Appeal Br. 13 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 27-28); see also Reply Br. 5-10. “Clearly the present claims cannot be performed within the human mind and the human mind does not go through the specific ordered combination of operations set forth in the present claims when attempting to provide managing a development of a software program.” Appeal Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 10. “[T]he present claims recite a mechanism that enables a data processing system to perform operations that it could not do prior to the claimed invention, as is evidenced by the lack of any prior art rejection thereby indicating an inventive concept.” Appeal Br. 20 (citing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); see also Reply Br. 10-14. “[T]he data processing system is specifically configured to implement the specifically configured logic elements discussed above.” Appeal Br. 20; see also Reply Br. 14. “The claims do not merely generically link the alleged exception to a particular technological environment but instead recite the technological environment as an integral part of the improved computing tool.” Appeal Br. 21; see also Reply Br. 14-15. The claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 21-23. “[T]he claims are directed to an ordered combination of elements that sets forth a technology-based solution to a computer-based problem, namely computer-based managing a development of a software program so as to be less dependent on personal skills, less prone to errors and highly repeatable.” Appeal Br. 22 (citing Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, AT&T Corp., 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); see Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 8 also Reply Br. 15. “The Examiner has not satisfied any of these 4 ways of establishing additional elements as being well-understood, routine, or conventional and thus, has not presented a prima facie case.” Appeal Br. 23 (citing Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); see also Reply Br. 15. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We do not see any error in the Examiner’s determination that the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Are the claims patent-eligible? Step 1 Claim 1 recites a method, which falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 14 recites a computer program product, which falls within the “manufacture” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 20 recites an apparatus, which falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, we must determine whether the claims recite a judicial exception and fail to integrate the exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 54-55. If both elements are satisfied, the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test. See id. Step 2A, Prong One Independent claim 1 recites the following steps: [i] detecting, by an analyzer in the data processing system, a completion of one or more development tasks of the software program; Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 9 [ii] identifying, by the analyzer, one or more software artifacts from a plan repository relating to each of the one or more development tasks of the software program; [iii] retrieving, by the analyzer, one or more development parameters of each of the one or more software artifacts from a test repository, wherein the development parameters of each of the one or more software artifacts comprise an implementation time and a test time; [iv] associating, by the analyzer, each of the one or more software artifacts with one or more functional areas of the software program; [v] calculating, by an estimator in the data processing system, one or more development parameters of each of the one or more functional areas of the software program according to the one or more development parameters of each of the one or more software artifacts associated with a functional area; [vi] receiving, by the analyzer, a functional specification of the software program to be developed; [vii] associating, by the analyzer, the functional specification of the software program with one or more selected functional areas of the one or more functional areas of the software program according to a comparison of the functional specification with corresponding identification information of the one or more functional areas of the software program; [viii] estimating, by the estimator, one or more development parameters of the functional specification according to the one or more development parameters of the one or more selected functional areas; and [ix] outputting, by a planner in the data processing system, an indication of the one or more development parameters of the functional specification for managing a development thereof. Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 10 The overall process described by steps [i]-[ii], [iv]-[v], and [vii]- [viii] describes “concepts performed in the human mind” or “observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Thus, steps [i]-[ii], [iv]-[v], and [vii]-[viii] recite the abstract concept of “[m]ental processes.” Id. For example, in step [i], “detecting . . . a completion of one or more development tasks of the software program” is an observation. Similarly, in step [ii], “identifying . . . one or more software artifacts from a plan repository relating to each of the one or more development tasks of the software program” is also an observation. Further, in step [iv], “associating . . . each of the one or more software artifacts with one or more functional areas of the software program,” and in step [v], “calculating . . . one or more development parameters of each of the one or more functional areas of the software program according to the one or more development parameters of each of the one or more software artifacts associated with a functional area” are a combination of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Further, in step [vii], “associating . . . the functional specification of the software program with one or more selected functional areas of the one or more functional areas of the software program according to a comparison of the functional specification with corresponding identification information of the one or more functional areas of the software program,” and in step [viii], “estimating . . . one or more development parameters of the functional specification according to the one or more development parameters of the one or more selected functional areas” are a combination of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 11 Thus, we determine claim 1 recites a judicial exception. For these same reasons, we also determine claims 14 and 20 recite a judicial exception. Step 2A, Prong Two Because claims 1, 14, and 20 recite a judicial exception, we next determine if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In addition to the limitations of claim 1 discussed above that recite abstract concepts, claim 1 further recites an “analyzer,” an “estimator,” and a “planner.” Claim 1 also further recites the following steps: “[iii] retrieving, by the analyzer, one or more development parameters of each of the one or more software artifacts from a test repository, wherein the development parameters of each of the one or more software artifacts comprise an implementation time and a test time”; “[vi] receiving, by the analyzer, a functional specification of the software program to be developed”; and “[ix] outputting, by a planner in the data processing system, an indication of the one or more development parameters of the functional specification for managing a development thereof.” Claim 14 further recites a “computer readable storage medium.” Claim 20 further recites a “processor” and a “memory.” The Specification does not provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. For example, Appellant’s Specification discloses “an analyzer 360 is used to analyze the software programs to determine their development parameters.” Spec. ¶ 36. Appellant’s Specification further discloses “[a]n estimator 375 is used to estimate the development parameters of (new) user Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 12 stories of the software programs to be developed.” Spec. ¶ 37. Appellant’s Specification further discloses “[a] planner 350 is used to plan the development tasks of the software programs (comprising implementation tasks for implementing the software programs and test tasks for testing the software programs).” Spec. ¶ 35. Thus, the “analyzer,” “estimator,” and “planner” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Appellant’s Specification further discloses [t]he computer readable storage medium may be, for example, but is not limited to, an electronic storage device, a magnetic storage device, an optical storage device, an electromagnetic storage device, a semiconductor storage device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. A non-exhaustive list of more specific examples of the computer readable storage medium includes the following: a portable computer diskette, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), a static random access memory (SRAM), a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), a digital versatile disk (DVD), a memory stick, a floppy disk, a mechanically encoded device such as punch-cards or raised structures in a groove having instructions recorded thereon, and any suitable combination of the foregoing. Spec. ¶ 93. Appellant’s Specification further discloses [t]hese computer readable program instructions may he provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks. Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 13 Spec. ¶ 97. Thus, the “computer readable storage medium,” “processor,” and “memory” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the additional limitations reciting “[iii] retrieving, by the analyzer, one or more development parameters of each of the one or more software artifacts from a test repository, wherein the development parameters of each of the one or more software artifacts comprise an implementation time and a test time” and “[vi] receiving, by the analyzer, a functional specification of the software program to be developed” do not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these merely are directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); see also Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas.”). Still further, the additional limitation reciting “[ix] outputting, by a planner in the data processing system, an indication of the one or more development parameters of the functional specification for managing a development thereof” also does not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because it merely is directed to the insignificant post-solution activity of outputting data. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Thus, we determine claims 1, 14, and 20 are directed to a judicial exception because claims 1, 14, and 20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 14 Is there something else in the claims that ensures that they are directed to significantly more than a patent ineligible concept? Step 2B Because claims 1, 14, and 20 are directed to a judicial exception, we must determine, according to Alice, whether these claims recite an element, or combination of elements that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed to significantly more than a judicial exception. The Memorandum, Section III (B) (footnote 36) states: In accordance with existing guidance, an examiner’s conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must be supported with a factual determination. For more information concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum. The Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III (A)(1) states: A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). A finding that an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element. Regarding the “analyzer,” “estimator,” “planner,” “computer readable storage medium,” “processor,” and “memory,” the conventional or generalized functional terms by which the computer components are Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 15 described reasonably indicate that Appellant’s Specification discloses conventional components, and describes the components in a manner that indicates that these elements are sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See Spec. ¶¶ 35-37, 93, and 97. Further, the Specification does not provide additional details that would distinguish the recited components from generic implementation individually and generic implementation in the combination. Thus, these limitations simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Further, regarding “[iii] retrieving, by the analyzer, one or more development parameters of each of the one or more software artifacts from a test repository, wherein the development parameters of each of the one or more software artifacts comprise an implementation time and a test time”; “[vi] receiving, by the analyzer, a functional specification of the software program to be developed”; and “[ix] outputting, by a planner in the data processing system, an indication of the one or more development parameters of the functional specification for managing a development thereof,” our reviewing court has recognized that receiving, processing, and storing data as well as receiving or transmitting data over a network are well- understood, routine, and conventional activities. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic computer components, such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); see also TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d 607; and Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1350. There is no indication that the Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 16 recited elements override the conventional use of known features or involve an unconventional arrangement or combination of elements such that the particular combination of generic technology results in anything beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and output. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”); see also Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he invocation of ‘already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance . . . amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.’”) (quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive.”). Thus, we determine claims 1, 14, and 20 are not directed to significantly more than a patent ineligible concept. Appellant’s arguments Regarding Appellant’s arguments relating to Step 2A, Prong One, these arguments do not show any reversible error because the overall process described by steps [i]-[ii], [iv]-[v], and [vii]-[viii] recites the abstract concept of “[m]ental processes.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, this determination is not based on an oversimplification and generalization of the claim, and our analysis addresses the actual claimed features. Further, we determine that the recited steps are mental processes, rather than a specifically configured computing Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 17 tool or a particular ordered combination of computer operations that can only be performed with a computing system. Appellant’s Specification discloses Particularly, the development parameters that are estimated for each functional specification facilitate the planning of the corresponding development tasks of the software program; this operation may be automated (at least in part), so as to be less dependent on personal skills, less prone to errors and highly repeatable. This solution allows predicting an impact of any change on the software program (based on corresponding historical/statistic information relating to its development). Particularly, the functional areas that should be affected by the change may be identified in advance. Moreover, it is possible to predict an effort required to implement and test the change, its defectiveness and an effort required to fix it; it is also possible to select the most appropriate tests for verifying the change and to evaluate a coverage thereof. Spec. ¶¶ 27-28 (emphasis added), cited at Appeal Br. 13. We have considered the disclosures in Appellant’s Specification, including paragraphs 27-28. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, we do not agree that the claimed invention is a computer tool. Rather, we determine the claimed method steps may be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The Federal Circuit has held that if a method can be performed by human thought alone, or by a human using pen and paper, it is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[A] method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 18 idea and is not patent-eligible under [35 U.S.C.] § 101.”). Similarly, the Federal Circuit has found claims directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” as directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1350, 1353. Accordingly, the various steps [i]-[ii], [iv]-[v], and [vii]-[viii] recited in independent claim 1 all describe the abstract idea. The abstract idea, even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper, remains an abstract idea. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”). Regarding Appellant’s arguments relating to Step 2A, Prong Two, these arguments do not show any reversible error because the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the claimed invention does not improve computer functionality, provide a particular machine, or otherwise present anything more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Rather, the additional limitations beyond the mental processes provide a generic implementation of the abstract idea or are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity. We do not see any particular improvements to technology. Therefore, on the record before us, the claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the various hardware components, nor do they achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further, to the extent the claim solves a problem related to Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 19 managing development of a software product, this does not make the claim any less abstract. Regarding Appellant’s arguments relating to Step 2B, these arguments do not show any reversible error because we determine the “analyzer,” “estimator,” “planner,” “computer readable storage medium,” “processor,” and “memory” simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Further, we determine the additional method steps beyond the abstract idea are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. We do not see an ordered combination of elements as providing significantly more than the mental processes. Using a computer to manage development of a software product is not significantly more than the recited mental processes that describe managing development of the software product. Further, our analysis above considers the claims in light of current USPTO guidance, including the Berkheimer Memorandum. Further, as we explain above, the Specification does not provide additional details about the computer that would distinguish the recited components from conventional components, and from generic implementation individually and generic implementation in the combination Thus, we determine claims 1, 14, and 20 are not directed to significantly more than a patent ineligible concept. Appellant presents arguments for some of the dependent claims. See Appeal Br. 25-31; see also Reply Br. 15-16. The arguments, in essence, are variations of the arguments presented for the independent claims, and do not show any reversible error for the same reasons explained above where we applied the Memorandum. Thus, we also determine claims 2-13 and 15- Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 20 19 are not directed to significantly more than a patent ineligible concept. We add the following for emphasis. Claims 2 and 15 do not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they further describe the step of planning, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Claims 3 and 16 do not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they further describe the step of calculating, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Claims 4 and 17 do not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they further describe the steps of determining, calculating, associating, and calculating, which are a combination of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Claim 5 does not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because it further describes the steps of determining and calculating, which are a combination of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Claim 6 does not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because it further describes the step of estimating, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Claims 7 and 18 do not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they further describe the step of associating, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Claims 8 and 19 do not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they further describe the step of associating, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Claim 9 does not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because it further describes the step of updating, which is directed to the Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 21 insignificant post-solution and well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of outputting data. Claim 10 is not separately argued with particularity. Claim 11 does not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because it further describes the step of determining, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Claim 12 does not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because it further describes the steps of retrieving, assigning, assigning, and outputting. The step of retrieving is directed to the insignificant extra- solution activity of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of data gathering. The steps of assigning and assigning are a combination of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. The step of outputting is directed to the insignificant post-solution and well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of outputting data. Claim 13 does not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because it further describes the steps of calculating, calculating, and outputting. The steps of calculating and calculating are a combination of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. The step of outputting is directed to the insignificant post-solution and well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of outputting data. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-13 and 15-19. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed. Appeal 2020-005338 Application 15/440,714 22 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-20 101 Eligibility 1-20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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