Joseph Rosebrock

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 19, 2021

2021004159 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2021)

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.
15/703,672 09/13/2017 Joseph E. Rosebrock 352/2360US 6337
22822 7590 10/19/2021
LEWIS RICE LLC
ATTN: BOX IP DEPT.
600 WASHINGTON AVE.
SUITE 2500
ST LOUIS, MO 63101
EXAMINER
BROCKINGTON III, WILLIAM S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2021 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):
IPDEPT@LEWISRICE.COM
KDAMMAN@LEWISRICE.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOSEPH E. ROSEBROCK
____________

Appeal 2021–004159
Application 15/703,672
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2021-004159
Application 15/703,672

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Joseph E. Rosebrock (Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of a final rejection of claims 1–8, the only claims pending in the application
on appeal. Oral arguments were presented October 8, 2021. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way of determining the prudence of a
capital expenditure. Specification para. 2.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A method for automatically generating financial statements
associated with an investment opportunity, the method
comprising:
[1] providing a computer;
[2] performing a valuation analysis on the computer, the
valuation analysis comprising:
[2.1] determining any two values from a first group
consisting of: comparative return measure, point-in-time
initial cost, and operating performance of an investment
over time;
[2.2] determining one value from a second group
consisting of: future sale price, and future salvage value;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed March 15, 2021) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 21,
2021), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 21, 2021), and
Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 13, 2020).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Joseph E.
Rosebrock (Appeal Br. 1).

Appeal 2021-004159
Application 15/703,672

3

[2.3] using the three determined values to solve for an
undetermined value from the first group;
and
[2.4] using the four values to provide a valuation of the
investment;
and
[3] the computer automatically generating financial statements
based on the four values without additional human assumptions
being supplied to the computer;
[4] wherein the comparative return measure (i) is an internal
equity return and n is a number of periods measured over and is
computed when
∑ 0;
[5] wherein the point-in-time initial cost is computed as
∑
∑ ;
[6] wherein the operating performance of the investment over
time is computed as
∑ ∗
∑ ;
[7] wherein the future sale price is computed as
∑ ∗
;
and
[8] wherein the future salvage value is computed as
∑ ∗
;
and
[9] wherein the generated financial statements are identical
regardless of which value in the first group was the
undetermined value solved for.
Appeal 2021-004159
Application 15/703,672

4

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 4–8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.

ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial
exception without significantly more
STEP 13
Claim 1, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those

3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2021-004159
Application 15/703,672

5

patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is
there in the claims before us? To answer that question, . . .
consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as an
ordered combination” to determine whether the additional
elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-
eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis as a search for an “‘inventive concept’”—i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure
that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a
patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations
omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the
claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite
one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining
whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “apply, rely on, or use 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.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
54. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally
determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the
additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the
recited judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 1 recites providing a computer, performing a valuation analysis, and
Appeal 2021-004159
Application 15/703,672

6

generating financial statements. Providing a computer is using a generic
computer. Performing a valuation analysis, and generating financial
statements are analyzing and printing data. Thus, claim 1 recites analyzing
and printing data. None of the limitations recites technological
implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results
desired by any and all possible means.
From this we see that claim 1 does not recite the judicial exceptions of
either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts4, (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity5, and (3) mental processes6. Among those certain methods of
organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial or
legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 1 recites the concept of
managing financial interactions. Specifically, claim 1 recites operations that
would ordinarily take place in advising one to generate financial statements

4 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2021-004159
Application 15/703,672

7

based on valuation analysis. The advice to generate financial statements
based on valuation analysis involves generating financial statements, which
is an economic act, and performing a valuation analysis, which is an act
ordinarily performed in the stream of commerce. For example, claim 1
recites “generating financial statements,” which is an activity that would
take place whenever one is managing financial interaction. Similarly, claim
1 recites “performing a valuation analysis,” which is also characteristic of
financial management.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to mathematical
calculations and financial statements. Final Act. 8–9. The preamble to
claim 1 recites that it is a method for automatically generating financial
statements associated with an investment opportunity. The steps in claim 1
result in managing financial interactions by generating financial statements
based on valuation analysis absent any technological mechanism other than
a conventional computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 1–3 recite generic and
conventional analyzing and printing of financial data, which advise one to
apply generic functions to get to these results. The remaining limitations are
mathematical definitions. The limitations thus recite advice for generating
financial statements based on valuation analysis. To advocate generating
financial statements based on valuation analysis is conceptual advice for
results desired and not technological operations.
The Specification at paragraph 2 describes the invention as relating to
determining the prudence of a capital expenditure. Thus, all this intrinsic
evidence shows that claim 1 recites managing financial interactions. This is
consistent with the Examiner’s determination.
Appeal 2021-004159
Application 15/703,672

8

This, in turn, is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a
certain method of organizing human activity because managing financial
interactions is a form of commercial interaction. The concept of managing
financial interactions by generating financial statements based on valuation
analysis is one idea for putting information in front of those making
financial decisions. The steps recited in claim 1 are part of how this might
conceptually be premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First
Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (financial
pricing).
Alternatively, this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of analyzing and printing data
mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgment, and
opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the data interpretation is
perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent
Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric
Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 1, unlike the
claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses generic computer technology
to perform data analysis and printing and does not recite an improvement to
a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims
not abstract because they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in
computer animation”). As such, claim 1 recites analyzing and printing data,
and not a technological implementation or application of that idea.
Appeal 2021-004159
Application 15/703,672

9

Alternatively, this is an example of a mathematical concept because
the steps of 2–9 perform a mathematical algorithm using mathematical
relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical
calculations. The remaining steps are mere data gathering and incidental
post processing steps. The Supreme Court has found claims to be directed to
abstract ideas when they recited similar subject matter. See Benson, above.
From this we conclude that claim 1 recites managing financial
interactions by generating financial statements based on valuation analysis,
which is at least a commercial and legal interaction, one of certain methods
of organizing human activity identified in the Revised Guidance, and, thus,
an abstract idea. Although we conclude that claim 1 additionally, or
alternatively, recites mental processes and mathematical concepts, we limit
our subsequent analysis to the grouping of abstract ideas pertaining to
certain methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 1 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application.7
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some
level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply
laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Thus, an
invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it
involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of such
concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said, remain

7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2021-004159
Application 15/703,672

10

eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying the § 101
exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the “
‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those that
integrate the building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Steps 1–3 recite generic computer
processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all possible
means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All purported
inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted and identifying the
results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data
interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those
results. Limitations 4–9 are not steps, but mathematical formula definitions.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 1 simply recites the concept of
managing financial interactions by generating financial statements based on
valuation analysis as performed by a generic computer. This is no more than
conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic
computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and do not recite
any particular implementation.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The Specification only spells out different
generic equipment8 and parameters that might be applied using this concept

8 The Specification describes a single computer and a network of client and
servers. Spec. para. 88.
Appeal 2021-004159
Application 15/703,672

11

and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on
the concept of managing financial interactions by generating financial
statements based on valuation analysis under different scenarios. It does not
describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions.
Instead, claim 1 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an
instruction to apply managing financial interactions by generating financial
statements based on valuation analysis 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.
None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of
a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,
applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or
prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial
exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation
or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or
uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception.
We conclude that claim 1 is directed to achieving the result of
managing financial interactions by advising one to generate financial
statements based on valuation analysis, as distinguished from a
technological improvement for achieving or applying that result. This
amounts to commercial or legal interactions, which fall within certain
Appeal 2021-004159
Application 15/703,672

12

methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The
claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 1 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not
enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract idea
“on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern
that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of
computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not
generally the sort of “additional featur[e]” that provides any
“practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the 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 for analyzing and printing data amounts to electronic data query
Appeal 2021-004159
Application 15/703,672

13

and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these
computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities
that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp.
LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (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”). None of
these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce
some unexpected result. Appellant does not contend it invented any of these
activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer
to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even
if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular
content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection
and analysis other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data analysis-printing is equally
generic and conventional. 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) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis,
modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2021-004159
Application 15/703,672

14

2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The
ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional.
We conclude that claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 1 is representative. The other independent method claims 2 and
3 are substantially similar at least as regards this analysis. The remaining
method claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude that the
method claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and
not to the practical application of that concept.
There are no structural claims. As a corollary, the claims are not directed
to any particular machine.
LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and
legal interaction of managing financial interactions by advising one to
generate financial statements based on valuation analysis, without
significantly more.
Appeal 2021-004159
Application 15/703,672

15

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 8–10 and Answer 3–14 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
ignored the Taylor Declaration. Reply Br. 1–2. This assertion is in error.
As the Examiner determined regarding the Declaration,
Applicant first asserts that the claims improve the associated
technology by facilitating the generation of matching financial
statements. Examiner disagrees and submits that the claims do
not embody any technical improvements. Instead, the claimed
improvements are associated with generating financial
statements. Such improvements stem from the claimed
mathematical equations and amount to business improvements
rather than improvements to any technology.
Non-Final Action mailed December 31, 2019, page 3.
Thus, the Examiner considered the Declaration and did not ignore it.
Instead, the Examiner determined that none of the Declarant’s assertions
served to show any technological implementation details in the claims.
Beyond that we note the following. This Declaration has 16 numbered
paragraphs. Paragraphs 1–5 and 16 are administrative. Paragraphs 6–8 are
definitional and therefore not meant to be persuasive. Paragraphs 9–11
assert conclusions as to what cannot be done, without supporting evidence.
Paragraph 12 asserts a conclusion as to what the claims allow to be done,
without supporting evidence. Paragraphs 13–15 assert conclusions as to
benefits without supporting evidence. As the Examiner determined, the
Declarations does not point to any technological implementation or
application details.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Appeal 2021-004159
Application 15/703,672

16

the Examiner’s Answer is bereft of any accounting for
Appellant's showing that the “Examiner fails to even mention the
claimed sequence of producing valuations and, in turn, using
those valuations when calculation [sic] a valuation via an
additional method.” Appeal Brief at 23. The Examiner should
have reviewed the entire scope of the Rejected Claims, including
the claimed relationships between claim elements, which
relationships constitute claim elements themselves. These
relationships are complex and detailed.
Reply Br. 2. Claim 1, limitation 2 recites, and claims 2 and 3 similarly
recite, determining values from two groups (steps 2.1 and 2.2), solving for
an undetermined value (step 2.3), and providing a valuation amount (step
2.4). We understand these limitations to be the “claimed sequence” to which
Appellant refers. As such, the claimed sequence is within the scope of
introductory data analytics and economics. This is both generic and
conventional. More to the point this is pure mathematical analysis, which is
itself abstract. See Benson above. We note that this argument does not
pertain to limitations 5–8 which are not steps, but mathematical definitions,
and therefore do not form a sequence.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “[t]he Examiner
has consistently failed to consider the relationships between the claim
terms.” Reply Br. 3. This is essentially a repetition of the prior argument
and is equally unpersuasive here.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the lack of any
preemption should counsel towards a finding of patent eligibility.” Reply
Br. 4. “Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent
ineligible subject matter under the Mayo [/Alice] framework, as they are in
this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Ariosa
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Appeal 2021-004159
Application 15/703,672

17

Appellant argues that the asserted claims are akin to the claims
found patent-eligible in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat System, Inc., 879 F.3d
1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Reply Br. 5–6. In Finjan, the Court held that claims
to a “behavior-based virus scan” were a specific improvement in computer
functionality and hence not directed to an abstract idea. Finjan, 879 F.3d at
1304. The claimed technique of scanning enabled “more flexible and
nuanced virus filtering” and detection of potentially dangerous code. Id.
This was done by “scanning a downloadable and attaching the results of that
scan to the downloadable itself in the form of a ‘security profile.’” Id. at
1303. The security profile included the information about potentially hostile
operations produced by a “behavior-based” virus scan, as distinguished from
traditional, “code-matching” virus scans that are limited to recognizing the
presence of previously-identified viruses, typically by comparing the code in
a downloadable to a database of known suspicious code. Id. at 1304. This
behavior-based scan was a new type of file that when attached to a
downloadable allowed the computer to do more to protect itself than in the
past.
The instant claims present no such new type of processing to create a
file that improves computer performance. Instead, the claims are
conventional data processing of financial data. They may improve
information flow, but this is not an improvement to the computer.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claims are
analogous to those in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). Reply Br. 6. The claims differ from those found patent
eligible in Enfish, where the claims were “specifically directed to a self-
referential table for a computer database.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
Appeal 2021-004159
Application 15/703,672

18

822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims thus were “directed to a
specific improvement to the way computers operate,” rather than an
abstract idea implemented on a computer. Id. at 1336. Here, by contrast,
the claims are not directed to an improvement in the way computers
operate. Though the claims purport to accelerate the process of financial
analysis, our reviewing court has held that speed and accuracy increases
stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general purpose computer
“do[] not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject
matter.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.),
687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Instead, the claims are more
analogous to those in FairWarning, 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016),
wherein claims reciting “a few possible rules to analyze audit log data”
were found directed an abstract idea because they asked “the same
questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in
analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades.” 839 F.3d at
1094, 1095.
Appellant argues that evidence of something being conventional is
necessary. Reply Br. 6–7. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed.
Cir. 2018). Support for this finding is provided under Step 2B supra. To the
extent Appellant argues the ordering of the mathematical definitions in
limitations 4–8, as these are just that, mathematical definitions, they are
individually abstract ideas (see Benson above) and their concatenation
remains an abstract idea. “Adding one abstract idea . . . to another abstract
idea . . . does not render the claim nonabstract.” RecogniCorp, LLC v.
Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Appeal 2021-004159
Application 15/703,672

19

the Rejected Claims are patent-eligible because they recite an
inventive concept in the combination of limitations directed to
the steps for “determining any two values from a first group” of
three distinct valuations, then “determining one value from a
second group” of future valuations, then using these three values
to determine a valuation for the unused valuation from the first
group, and creating financial statements from these four values
without the need for a human to direct the valuation processes,
all while these financial statements themselves are identical.
Reply Br. 8. This ordering is that of mathematical calculation rather than
technological implementation. Again, simply adding or rearranging abstract
ideas does confer eligibility.

Claims 4–8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the invention
This rejection is not argued and, therefore, summarily affirmed.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
The rejection of claims 4–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention is proper.

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1–8 is affirmed.
In summary:
Appeal 2021-004159
Application 15/703,672

20

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–8 101 Eligibility 1–8
4–8 112(b) Indefiniteness 4–8
Overall Outcome 1–8

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED