Laderer, Tonya et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 25, 2020

15604056 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2020)

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.
15/604,056 05/24/2017 Tonya Laderer 150608-00101 3847
24998 7590 03/25/2020
Blank Rome LLP
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-5403
EXAMINER
GOLDBERG, IVAN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2020 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):
WashingtonDocketing@blankrome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TONYA LADERER and JOHN LADERER
____________

Appeal 2019-004163
Application 15/604,056
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, DEBORAH KATZ, and JOHN G. NEW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal1,2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a
workflow management platform for processing commercial advertising work
orders. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious and as reciting non-
statutory subject matter. 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. Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as
vCreative, Inc. (see Appeal Br. 2).
2 We have considered and herein refer to the Specification of Jan. 11, 2018
(“Spec.”); Final Office Action of Mar. 2, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief
of Jan. 28, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer of Mar. 7, 2019
(“Ans.”); and Reply Brief of May 6, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-004163
Application 15/604,056

2
Statement of the Case
Background
“Commercial advertising is a form of communication used to inform
and persuade an audience . . . to take action with respect to goods, services,
or brands” (Spec. 2:1–3). “The creation and production of commercial
advertising work orders . . . traditionally involves a paper-laden workflow
process wherein a wide variety of paperwork forms are completed by hand,
then submitted as a paper copy as it passes through various stages of the
sales, promotion, creative, and production processes” (id. at 2:11–14).
“[T]here exists a need in the art for an improved, internet-based work order
and resource management/sharing system specifically adapted for
submission, tracking, collaboration, centralization, archiving, and an overall
non-linear workflow method to facilitate the creation and production of
commercial advertising work orders” (id. at 7:2–5). “The present invention
overcomes the limitations and disadvantages present in the art by providing
a role-based workflow management platform which is accessed via a global
computer network, namely the internet” (id. at 7:8–10).
The Claims
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are on appeal.3 Independent claim 1 is
representative. Claim 1 is reproduced below, reformatted for clarity, and
with bracketed letters added to identify certain language:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a
database-powered, programmatic application executed on a
computer in conjunction with an internet-based application
executed on the computer that provides a workflow
management platform for creating, producing, and scheduling a
commercial advertisement from any location over a global

3 Claims 2 and 4 were cancelled in the After-Final Amendment June 1, 2018.
Appeal 2019-004163
Application 15/604,056

3
computer network, wherein the programmatic application
executes operations comprising:
[a] providing a work order generation interface that
receives information relating to the creation of the commercial
advertisement, and using the work order generation interface to
generate a work order for the commercial advertisement, and
designating at least a first user;
[b] displaying an inbox and folder interface that
displays information relating to work orders, and permitting the
first user to access the inbox and folder interface;
[c] providing a search and sort interface that provides
the ability to further filter and sort the results of a folder to
efficiently and accurately locate work order(s) required by a
user;
[d] providing a talent search interface that provides
intuitive, rapid search functionality to locate available and
suitable talent for the purposes of procuring a performance,
wherein said talent search interface is capable of filtering and
searching for voice performers based on matching categories,
groups, and criteria/attributes;
[e] providing a history interface that lists past actions
relating to said work order, including the name of the person,
date/time, and description of action(s) taken; and
[f] providing a customer relationship management
interface that logs and tracks customer interactions and
relationship actions.

(Claims App.).

The Rejections
A. The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Humble,4 Cohen,5 and Hengel6 (Final Act. 16–41).

4 Humble et al., US 2005/0261955 A1, published Nov. 24, 2005.
5 Cohen et al., US 2006/0106675 A1, published May 18, 2006.
6 Hengel et al., US 2008/0109305 A1, published May 8, 2008.
Appeal 2019-004163
Application 15/604,056

4
B. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Humble, Cohen, and Sayal7 (Applicant
Admitted Prior Art) (Final Act. 41–45).
C. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to an abstract idea (Final Act. 3–16).

A. & B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Because both of these rejections rely on the same combination of
references (Humble and Cohen), we will consider these rejections together.
The Examiner finds Humble teaches software for an advertising
agency to create a digital job jacket for all forms, contracts, and talent detail
for a broadcast production (see Final Act. 16–17). The Examiner finds
Humble teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 except for: (1) a computer
readable medium/memory, (2) displaying an inbox and folder interface and
permitting the first user to access the inbox, (3) providing a talent search
interface capable of filtering and searching for voice performers based on
matching categories, and (4) providing a customer relationship management
interface that logs and tracks customer interactions (id. at 16–23).
The Examiner finds Cohen teaches an electronic marketplace to
facilitate human performance tasks including software saved on a computer-
readable medium or memory (id. at 18–19). The Examiner finds Cohen
further teaches: 1) sending task performance results by email to authorized
users (id. at 20), 2) a search interface for identifying and filtering performers
by required qualifications (id. at 20–21), and 3) tracking a variety of
customer relationship actions in an database (id. at 23). The Examiner finds

7 Sayal et al., US 2003/0083910 A1, published May 1, 2003.
Appeal 2019-004163
Application 15/604,056

5
Hengel teaches a database for searching for live performers using voice-
characteristic search parameters (id. at 21–22).
The Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to improve Humble’s system with the functionalities taught
by Cohen and Hengel (see id. at 23–25). The Examiner concludes that
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
modify the system and method of creating a job production file
in Humble to further provide the ability to search for
information as disclosed in Cohen, and explicitly search by
voice characteristics as disclosed in Hengel since the claimed
invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in
combination each element merely would have performed the
same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in
the art would have recognized that the results of the
combination were predictable

(id. at 26).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of
record support the Examiner’s conclusion that Humble, Cohen, Hengel, and
Sayal render the claims obvious?
Findings of Fact (“FF”)
1. Humble teaches an Internet-based system for generating,
organizing, managing, and facilitating the talent-related details of each phase
of broadcast production by generating, storing, processing, and making
accessible talent information to the various entities involved in the
production process (Humble ¶ 22).
2. Humble teaches “software will be provided that will be
operative to generate and allow for the preparation for all contracts and
forms associated with a specific broadcast production . . . such software will
Appeal 2019-004163
Application 15/604,056

6
be operative to create and allow for the input of data for each and every
contract and form as may be required to hire performers for a given
production” (Humble ¶ 14).
3. Humble teaches “an advertising agency[ ] that is primarily
responsible for the broadcast production will utilize the software to create a
digital job jacket for all forms, contracts, and talent detail for the entire
production. Such software will be made available to the production
companies and casting agencies” (Humble ¶ 14; claim 3).
4. Humble teaches a database accessible by “personal computers
to gain access to the various contracts and standardized forms 206 utilized in
relation to obtaining, tracking and processing performer talent information”
(Humble ¶ 23).
5. Humble teaches conventional methodologies for providing
secured or limited access to users over a computer network, monitored by a
system administrator (Humble ¶ 26).
6. Humble teaches “the process is initiated by creating a new
job/product file and thereafter assigning a file number and password(s) for
the various entities that will be involved in a specific production.” The
system also provides audition report 208 to be completed online by a casting
company (Humble ¶ 29).
7. Cohen teaches electronic marketplace software for facilitating
task performance. The software
may track the progression of the tasks through various states
(e.g., an “open” state for tasks that are available to be
performed, an “assigned” state for each assignment of a task to
one or more task performers, a “completed” state for an
assignment after the task performer provides the results of
performance of the task, etc.), and may further take various
Appeal 2019-004163
Application 15/604,056

7
actions corresponding to the tasks. In addition, in some
embodiments a task requester user may impose various criteria
regarding performance of a task (e.g., required and/or preferred
qualifications for task performers, time limits for task
completion, etc.) and/or may specify various actions associated
with task performance (e.g., payment of a specified fee under
specified conditions), and if so the electronic marketplace may
enforce those criteria and initiate those actions as appropriate
for the task

(Cohen ¶ 25).
8. Cohen teaches the “system tracks information about the current
status of tasks, such as by updating information 145 about available tasks,
and stores results 150 from the performance of tasks that are received via
interface 135b.” Task requesters may interact with interactive console 140a
to review results, or may receive the results email (Cohen ¶ 36).
9. Cohen teaches “task requesters interact with the electronic
marketplace in a programmatic manner, such as by invoking defined
[application program interfaces] (APIs) of the marketplace (e.g., APIs based
on Web services provided by the electronic marketplace) to send messages
that request or supply information” (Cohen ¶ 27).
10. Cohen teaches
The defined APIs may allow the task requesters to not only
submit tasks that are available to be performed, but also to
perform various other actions with respect to previously
submitted tasks (e.g., check on the status of pending tasks,
modify information about pending tasks, submit instructions
regarding handling of pending tasks, and interactively obtain
results for completed tasks)

(Cohen ¶ 27).
Appeal 2019-004163
Application 15/604,056

8
11. Cohen teaches the system may include “Activity Tracking
Manager module 138 that tracks a variety of types of activities [] and stores
the tracked information in an activity log database,” “Notification Manager
module 139 that provides notifications to users,” “Reward Manager module
142 that tracks information about compensation,” and “Accounting Manager
module 141 to perform various administrative functions” (Cohen ¶ 47).
12. Cohen teaches searching a database for qualifications of task
performers, including permissions, nicknames, pricing, qualification values,
completion rates, and location (see Cohen ¶¶ 104–116).
13. Cohen teaches “the system further provides functionality to
assist in authenticating or otherwise corroborating information about users,
such as identities of users, specified qualifications of users, and other kinds
of attributes of users” (Cohen ¶ 117).
14. Cohen teaches “tasks may be submitted by one or more task
requesters for performance by a group of multiple task performers” (Cohen
¶ 140).
15. Hengel teaches a database for searching “for live performers
that have voice characteristics similar to those specified. Live performers
are typically voice-over artists that can professionally read an advertisement
script for a broadcast medium” (Hengel ¶ 59, Figure 7).
16. Hengel teaches search parameters may include voice
characteristics such as “male,” “Brooklyn accent,” and “youthful” (Hengel
¶ 44).
17. Sayal teaches a “system for integrating workflow management
systems (WfMSs) with business-to-business interaction standards” (Sayal
¶ 35).
Appeal 2019-004163
Application 15/604,056

9
18. Sayal teaches “[a]n important step in the integration of
interaction standards to a workflow management system of according to the
present invention is the generation of templates in three detail levels: 1)
process, 2) service, and 3) XML document formats” (Sayal ¶ 114).
Principles of Law
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Analysis
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact and reasoning regarding the
scope and content of the prior art (Final Act. 16–45; FF 1–18) and agree that
the claims are obvious over Humble, Cohen, Hengel, and Sayal. We address
Appellant’s arguments below.
Appellant argues that the prior art does not teach “that the work order
generation interface is used to generate a work order for the commercial
advertisement” (see Appeal Br. 16). Appellant contends Humble uses a “job
record” for accounting and compensation purposes (id. at 17). Appellant
argues that Humble’s creating a new job/production file does not meet the
limitation of generating a work order (id.). Appellant argues that Cohen and
Hengel “do not overcome the deficiencies of Humble” (id.).
With respect to claim 3, Appellant contends that Humble’s “digital
job jacket for all forms, contracts, and talent detail,” refers to forms “for
hiring performers and for union purposes” (id. at 18). Appellant argues that
Humble’s forms, contracts, and talent detail “do not meet the work order of
claim 3 . . . generated by using a work order creation screen” (id.).
Appellant applies the same argument as to claims 5 and 6 (id. at 19).
Appeal 2019-004163
Application 15/604,056

10
We find these arguments unpersuasive. Although Appellant argues
that the prior art does not teach the step of using a work order interface to
generate a work order for a commercial advertisement, Appellant does not
explain what features distinguish the claimed limitations from the prior art.
Because, the plain and ordinary meaning of generating a work order appears
to be taught by the prior art, we review the Specification for some limiting
definition of “work order for commercial advertisement.”
The Specification defines the term “commercial advertisement” as
“any form of an advertisement, promotion, or campaign of a production or
service that is broadcast, transmitted, or embedded within or on any platform
or medium” (Spec. 7:15–16). The Specification describes conventional
“commercial advertising work orders” as including a wide variety of
paperwork forms filled out by hand (id. at 2:11–14; 3:12–20). In contrast,
the claimed work order interface may include “a screen display for a typical
work order for initial data entry” (id. at 23:20–21; see Fig. 4). The work
order interface may include various constant data fields, e.g., client name,
work order title, international standardization commercial identifier (ISCI)
code, sales person of contact (POC), sold state, initial workflow status, and
ad type (id. at 23:20–24:2). Variable data fields differ depending on the
applied industry, and may include length, rotation percentage, due date, run
dates, and time of day (id. at 23:3–8). “Work orders may also capture a
client email address 436, one or more stations 438 for broadcast, and files
448 relevant to the work order” (id. at 24:9–16). The Specification
acknowledges that the prior art teaches generating a work order in a database
to produce a recorded announcement (see id. at 4:6–11).
Appeal 2019-004163
Application 15/604,056

11
The Specification does not include any limiting definition of “work
order for commercial advertisement” outside of its plain and ordinary
meaning. “[W]hile it is true that claims are to be interpreted in light of the
specification and with a view to ascertaining the invention, it does not follow
that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims.” Sjolund
v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we
compare the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims to the prior art.
“[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Humble teaches software for inputting data for contracts and forms
required for a given broadcast production (FF 2). Humble teaches that an
advertising agency is responsible for the broadcast production, therefore, the
production may be a commercial advertisement (FF 3). The agency will
create a digital job jacket for all forms and contracts, and the digital job
jacket is available to production companies and casting agencies (id.).
Humble teaches initiating the process by creating a new job/production file
(work order) (FF 6). The production file may include a file number (work
order title), passwords for various entities (points of contact), and audition
report (workflow status), among other types of information (id.).
Likewise, Cohen teaches software with application program interfaces
for requesting tasks from task performers (work orders) (FF 7–10). The
interfaces may include inputs for various data fields necessary to complete
the tasks, and may track the actions of the various parties performing the
tasks (see FF 11–14).
Appeal 2019-004163
Application 15/604,056

12
The combined prior art teaches software for initiating a broadcast
production by an advertising agency through an interface for inputting data
and creating electronic forms. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner
that the combined prior art reasonably suggests “providing a work order
generation interface that receives information relating to the creation of the
commercial advertisement, and using the work order generation interface to
generate a work order for the commercial advertisement,” and the
corresponding limitations of claims 3 and 5. “In determining whether
obviousness is established by combining the teachings of the prior art, the
test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested
to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1581
(Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal quotations omitted).

Conclusion of Law
A preponderance of the evidence of record support the Examiner’s
conclusion that the combined prior art renders the claims obvious.

C. 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Examiner finds the claims recite multiple abstract ideas
including: 1) “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain
results of the collection and analysis,” 2) “providing restricted access to
resources,” and 3) “‘certain methods of organizing human activity’ as it
covers the management of business relations or relationships between
people” (Ans. 4, 6–7). The Examiner further finds that “[t]here appears to
be little, if any technological aspects to how these limitations are
Appeal 2019-004163
Application 15/604,056

13
functionally performed . . . and it is still akin to applying and implementing
the abstract idea on a computer” (id. at 7).
Appellant contends
the claims on appeal do not recite a mathematical concept, a
mental process, or any of the “[c]ertain methods of organizing
human activity.” The claims do not recite a fundamental
economic principle or practice, a commercial (or legal)
interaction, or management of personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people.

(Reply Br. 2).

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 U.S. 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 Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice.
Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first
determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at
219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Appeal 2019-004163
Application 15/604,056

14
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and therefore 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) 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, 191 (1981)) or software “purporting to improve the
functioning of the computer itself” (Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
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. (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.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office published revised
guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO’s 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Revised Guidance”).8 Under
the Guidance, in determining what concept the claim is “directed to,” we
first look to whether the claim recites:

8 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
50–57 (January 7, 2019).
Appeal 2019-004163
Application 15/604,056

15
(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) (“Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1”);
and

(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–
(c), (e)–(h) (“Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2”).

Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look, whether the claim
contains an “‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’” the claimed
judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 82). In so doing, we thus,
consider whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial
exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional”
in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or

(4) simply appends well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry,
specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.

(Guidance Step 2B). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–56.

Analysis
Applying the Revised Guidance to the facts on this record, we find
Appellant’s claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are directed to patent-ineligible subject
matter. Because the same issues are present in each of the claims, we focus
our consideration on representative claim 1. The same analysis applied
below to claim 1 also applies to the other rejected claims.
Appeal 2019-004163
Application 15/604,056

16
A. Guidance Step 1
We consider whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four
statutory categories set forth in § 101, namely “[p]rocess, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter.” Guidance 53–54; see 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Claim 1 recites a “medium,” claim 3 recites a “method,” and claim 5
recites “system” and, thus, fall within the “composition of matter,”
“process,” and “machine,” categories respectively. Consequently, we
proceed to the next step of the analysis.
B. Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1
The Revised Guidance instructs us first to determine whether any
judicial exception to patent eligibility is recited in the claim. The Revised
Guidance identifies three judicially-excepted groupings identified by the
courts as abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of
organizing human behavior such as commercial or legal interactions, and (3)
mental processes.
Claim 1 reasonably falls within two of the three of the judicially-
excepted groupings listed in the Revised Guidance: fundamental economic
practices involving business relations and mental processes.
Claim 1 is drawn to software (programmatic application executed on a
computer) to facilitate workflow for producing a commercial advertisement.
The application provides interfaces for a user to search for talent and log and
track customer interactions (see Claim 1 [a], [d], [f]). This is reasonably
understood as a fundamental economic practice, traditionally performed by a
several interdependent parties as “a paper-laden workflow process wherein a
wide variety of paperwork forms are completed by hand” (Spec. 2:11–13).
According to the Specification, inefficient paper-based workflow
Appeal 2019-004163
Application 15/604,056

17
“introduces further complications when completed advertisements must be
approved by the buyer or advertiser,” thus, directly implicating business
relations between producers and buyers of commercial advertisements (id. at
3:2–5).
Moreover, the Specification states that, for previous work orders, “the
many steps and persons involved directly increases the potential for human
error (missing a submission deadline/cutoff, forgetfulness to pass work
orders on to the next step in a workflow, relevant emails being marked as
spam - thereby going unnoticed, or simply misplacing a paper copy of a
work order)” (id. at 3:16–20). In other words, the Specification describes
the various mental processes performed by the human mind that are replaced
by the claimed workflow platform. For example, the platform replaces
mental processes with an inbox and folder interface, search and sort
interface, and history interface (see Claim 1, [b], [c], [e]). Accordingly, we
conclude that the steps of claim 1 recite the judicial exceptions of
fundamental economic practices and mental processes.
Appellant contends claim 1 does not recite a mathematical concept or
a mental process (Appeal Br. 7). Appellant contends claim 1 does not recite
“advertising,” but rather “creating, producing and scheduling a commercial
advertisement,” which is a product itself (id.). Appellant argues that this is
not a commercial interaction or legal interaction, and thus not a fundamental
economic practice (id.).
We find this argument unpersuasive. We find the instant claims
similar to those in Credit Acceptance, in which the Federal Circuit held that
claims directed to a method of “processing an application for financing a
purchase” did not satisfy Alice step one as the “specification itself
Appeal 2019-004163
Application 15/604,056

18
demonstrate[d] that processing an application for financing a purchase is a
fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.’”
See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1054 (Fed.
Cir. 2017). In Credit Acceptance, our reviewing court found that “mere
automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute
a patentable improvement in computer technology.” Id. at 1055. The instant
claim 1 is similar because claim 1 uses computers to automate manually-
performed paper-based interactions for creating, producing, and scheduling a
commercial advertisement.
Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2
Having determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, the
Revised Guidance directs us to next consider whether the claims integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application. Guidance Step 2A, Prong
2. “[I]ntegration into a practical application” requires that the claim recite
an additional element or a combination of elements, that when considered
individually or in combination, “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.” Guidance at 54.
Appellant contends “the claim as a whole integrates any such judicial
exception into a practical application” (Appeal Br. 8). Appellant contends
“claim 1 integrates ‘scheduling a commercial advertisement’ into a practical
application by combining it with a number of specific, practical steps
(‘displaying an inbox and folder interface,’ ‘designating at least a first user,’
‘permitting the first user to access the inbox and folder interface,’ and
others)” (id.). Moreover, Appellant contends “the claim should not be said
Appeal 2019-004163
Application 15/604,056

19
to be directed merely to ‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying
it,’ because the claim also refers to the concrete, physical step of ‘permitting
the first user [the same user who is designated in the recited designating
step] to access the inbox and folder interface,’ among other things” (id. at
11).
We find these arguments unpersuasive. “[T]he Alice inquiry . . . asks
whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in
computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an
‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Credit
Acceptance, 859 F.3d at 1055 (citing Enfish, 882 F.3d at 1335–36). Claim 1
is plainly of the second category, wherein the process as a whole is directed
to an abstract idea, and the recited generic computer elements, e.g., inbox,
interface, and user permissions, are invoked merely as tools for performing
the abstract idea. See id.
Likewise, the step of permitting user access to an inbox and folder
interface is not “a concrete physical step,” apart from the abstract idea. Our
reviewing court has found that claims reciting similar rules for the
administrative review and processing of gated messages to be abstract ideas
without a practical application. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec
Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As applied to the instant
claims, “with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is
nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed
by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.” Id.
Appellant contends that claim 1 “imposes meaningful limits on
scheduling a commercial advertisement,” and “would in no way monopolize
scheduling a commercial advertisement” by controlling access to a
Appeal 2019-004163
Application 15/604,056

20
designated user (Appeal Br. 8, emphasis omitted). In other words, Appellant
argues that the claim would not preempt other methods for scheduling a
commercial advertisement.
We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive. While preemption is a
concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a stand-alone test for
determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d
1042, 1052, (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[W]e have consistently held that claims that
are otherwise directed to patent-ineligible subject matter cannot be saved by
arguing the absence of complete preemption.” Return Mail, Inc. v. United
States Postal Service, 868 F.3d 1350, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
C. Guidance Step 2B
Having determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a
practical application, the Revised Guidance requires us to evaluate the
additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether
they provide an inventive concept, such as a specific limitation beyond the
judicial exception that is not well-understood, routine, conventional in the
field, or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. See 84 Fed. Reg. 51.
The Examiner has provided abundant evidence, particularly in the
obviousness analysis, demonstrating that both the process steps and the
structural components of the claim were well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry (see FF 1–18).
Indeed, the Specification itself states that workflow management systems for
facilitating and promoting creative works were well-known (Spec. 4:6–
6:24). Because we affirmed the Examiner’s obviousness rejection for the
Appeal 2019-004163
Application 15/604,056

21
reasons given above, we also rely on the evidence relied upon in that
determination to show that the claim elements were well-understood,
routine, and conventional.
The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 103(a) Humble, Cohen,
Hengel
1
3, 5, 6 103(a) Humble, Cohen,
Sayal
3, 5, 6
1, 3, 5, 6 101 Eligibility 1, 3, 5, 6
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 5, 6

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED