Michael Allen. Emigh et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 3, 2019

14146481 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/146,481 01/02/2014 Michael Allen Emigh IDF 9735 (4300-43000) 3832
28003 7590 09/03/2019
SPRINT
6391 SPRINT PARKWAY
KSOPHT0101-Z2100
OVERLAND PARK, KS 66251-2100
EXAMINER
DELICH, STEPHANIE ZAGARELLA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/03/2019 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):
6450patdocs@sprint.com
SprintMail@dfw.conleyrose.com
steven.j.funk@sprint.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL ALLEN EMIGH, ROBERT D. LUMPKINS,
and BRIAN D. LUSHEAR1
____________

Appeal 2018-005608
Application 14/146,481
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 3–8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16–19, and 21.2 Claims 2, 9, 12,
15, and 20 were cancelled previously. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

1 The real party in interest and Appellant is Sprint Communications
Company L.P. App. Br. 3.
2 In this Opinion, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.,” filed January 2,
2014); the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed August 22, 2017),
Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed January 22, 2018), the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.,” mailed March 9, 2018), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 9,
2018). The Final Office Action was preceded by a Request for Continued
Examination filed November 28, 2016.

Appeal 2018-005608
Application 14/146,481

2

We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. The Invention
The Specification describes “method for categorizing customers.”
Spec. ¶ 5. Figure 2 of the Specification is reproduced below.

Appeal 2018-005608
Application 14/146,481

3

Figure 2, reproduced above, is a flow chart describing the method. Id.
¶ 11. Block 202 illustrates “a set of customers may be ranked based on a
first type of customer usage information.” Id. ¶ 26. At block 204
“customers may be separated into at least two segments based on the
ranking, wherein a division between segments defines boundaries.” Id.
Thus, a first boundary is defined between first and second divisions, a
sequence which is repeated to form subsequent boundaries between
segments. Id.
The boundaries take on a value based on the type of “customer usage
information of the customers on one or the other edge of the segments.” Id.
¶¶ 26, 27. “[T]he method may be repeated for multiple categories of
customer usage information.” Id. ¶ 27. “[C]ustomer usage information may
comprise one or more of: total bandwidth usage, number of devices, types of
devices, type of use of bandwidth, types of communication services,
revenue, location (international or domestic), etc.” Id.
Independent claim 1,3 reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method for dynamically retrieving
customer profiles from a communications network, the
method comprising:

ranking, by executing an analysis application on a network
computer system server, a set of customer profiles based
on a first type of customer usage information that consists
of an amount of bandwidth usage, wherein the ranking
places the set of customer profiles in order based on the
first type of customer usage information;

3 Claims 10 and 16 are also independent claims to a method and a system
respectively. The remaining rejected claims are dependent on one of the
independent claims.
Appeal 2018-005608
Application 14/146,481

4

separating, by the network computer system server, the set of
customer profiles into at least two segments based on the
ranking corresponding to the first type of customer usage
information, wherein the separating forms a first dynamic
boundary that is defined relative to the first type of
customer usage information such that the at least two
segments comprise a defined percentage of customer
profiles;

ranking, by the network computer system server, the set of
customer profiles based on a second type of customer
usage information that consists of the number of devices
associated with each customer profile, wherein the ranking
places the set of customer profiles in order based on
second type of customer usage information;

separating, by the network computer system server, the set of
customer profiles into at least two segments based on the
ranking corresponding to the second type of customer
usage information, wherein the separating forms a second
dynamic boundary that is defined relative to the second
type of customer usage information such that the at least
two segments comprise a defined percentage of customer
profiles;

receiving, by the network computer system server from a
work station computer system, a request to compare a
plurality of customer profiles in a segment of the at least
two segments for the first type of customer usage
information or the at least two segments for the second
type of customer usage information;

in response to receiving the request, dynamically determining
at run-time, by the network computer system, which
customer profiles are in the segment based on a current
definition of segment boundaries by initiating an
application programming interface get call invoking a
function that translates a segment value for a customer
profile to a current boundary based on the current
Appeal 2018-005608
Application 14/146,481

5

definition of segment boundaries, wherein the current
boundary based on the current definition of the segment
boundaries is such that the defined percentage of customer
profiles in each of the at least two segments for the first
type of customer usage information and each of the at least
two segments for the second type of customer usage
information is maintained;

receiving, by the network computer system server, the
customer profiles dynamically determined at run-time to
be in the segment;

comparing, by the network computer system server, the
customer profiles dynamically determined at run-time to
be in the segment; and

generating and sending, by the network computer system
server, service enhancement options for one or more
customers corresponding to one or more of the customer
profiles dynamically determined at run-time to be in the
segment based on differences in services identified during
the comparison.

App. Br. 27–28.

B. The Rejection
Claims 1, 3–8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16–19, and 21 (“rejected claims”) are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Final Act. 7–11.
C. Issue
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant in the Briefs have
been considered in this Decision. Arguments that Appellant does not make
in the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2018-005608
Application 14/146,481

6

Appellant’s arguments present the following issue: are claims 1, 3–8,
10, 11, 13, 14, 16–19, and 21 directed to patent ineligible subject matter?

ANALYSIS
A. Summary of Arguments
The Examiner determines the claims are ineligibly under § 101 as
directed to the abstract idea of “gathering profile information, analyzing it
and using rules to determine and send options” to a user. Final Act. 8. The
Examiner further determines that the:
claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
because the additional computer elements, which are recited at
a high level of generality, merely apply the abstract concepts
and provide conventional computer functions that do not add
meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Id.; see also Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217
(2014) (describing the two-step framework “for distinguishing patents that
claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.”). The Examiner finds
the identified “abstract concept” is “similar to TLI Communications where
digital images were classified and stored in an organized manner.” Final
Act. 8–9 (citing In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607
(Fed. Cir. 2016)).
As additional support for the Examiner’s determination that the claims
are directed to an ineligible abstract idea, the Examiner determines:
The ability to categorically sort or rank data in a certain form,
separate that information into profiles, e.g. store it accordingly is
considered well-established and abstract. A ranked list of usage
information illustrates a categorized sequence of information
Appeal 2018-005608
Application 14/146,481

7

which is further categorized into segments based on multiple
types of usage information. Receiving a request for comparison,
gathering or determining and receiving the determined profiles
and comparing the profiles is considered similar to the ability to
gather or obtain and compare information, which was shown in
both Classen[4] and Cybersource[5] to be an abstract concept.

Id.6
Appellant argues the claims fall within section 101 and “that the
claims are not directed to a judicial exception, much less the asserted
abstract ideas.” App. Br. 15. Appellant argues the Examiner’s reliance on
TLI, Classen, CyberSource, and FairWarning is “misapplied because the
claimed features are not reasonably tied to the facts of cases referenced by
the Final Office Action.” Id. Appellant argues the Examiner describes the
abstract idea at such a high level that it “all but ensures that the exceptions to
§ 101 swallow the rule.” Id. at 15–16. (citing Enfish LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Concerning TLI Communications, Appellant argues the case is
distinguishable because TLI Communications related to classifying images.
App. Br. 16. According to Appellant and in contrast to TLI
Communications, the current claims do not relate to classification of digital
images. Id. Furthermore, Appellant contends TLI Communications turned

4 Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir.
2011).
5 CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir.
2011).
6 The Examiner also cites FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d
1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding a similar concept to that claimed “where
profiles are determined by using a value to define a boundary”). Final Act.
3–4.
Appeal 2018-005608
Application 14/146,481

8

on the end result, “classification and storage of digital images.” Id.
Appellant argues the facts are not analogous because:
Appellant’s claims receive requests for data, dynamically
determine at run-time profiles belonging to a particular segment
based on segment values and moving segment boundaries,
performing comparisons, and based on the above processing,
generating previously undetermined service enhancement
options to send to a particular profile identified based on a
segment value.
Id. at 17; see also Reply Br. 4 (making similar argument regarding TLI
Communications).
FairWarning is distinguishable, according to Appellant, as reciting
steps related to a single rule, as contrasted with Appellant’s claims which
require multiple steps related to differing functions which “transcend” the
mere generating, applying, storing, and notification steps related to the
FairWarning rule. App. Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 5–6 (arguing
FairWarning not analogous). FairWarning is also arguably distinguished
because the Federal Circuit found the claims there to be directed to a mental
concept relating to organizing human activity. App. Br. 17–18. The
FairWarning claims are contrasted as being directed to “analyzing records
of human activity to detect suspicious behavior.” Id. at 18.
Appellant also attempts to distinguish Classen and CyberSource.
App. Br. 19–22; see also Reply Br. 6–7 (arguing Classen and CyberSource
are not “relevant to the subject-matter eligibility of Appellant’s claims”).
Appellant contends Classen found some claims of one patent ineligible and
claims of another patent eligible. App. Br. 19–20 (citing Classen, 659 F.3d
at 1067–1068). The ineligible claims recited an ineligible abstract idea that
“variation in immunization schedules may have consequences for certain
Appeal 2018-005608
Application 14/146,481

9

diseases.” Id. at 19. The eligibility finding of claims of the other patent was
based on requiring “a further act in accordance with the determined
information, thereby moving the claims from abstract principle to specific
non-abstract application,” which Appellant equates to the present claims
requirement of an additional step following the “determined information.”
Id. at 20. Appellant argues that CyberSource’s claims “gratuitously
inserted” Internet technology whereas “the present claims are necessarily
rooted in technology in that the claims recite specific actions by a software
application that are incapable of performance in the human mind or by a
human using pen and paper.” Id. at 21.
After the mailing of the Answer and the filing of the Briefs in this
case, the USPTO published revised guidance on the application of § 101.
2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter “Revised Guidance,” “Rev. Guid.”).
Under the Revised Guidance, the Office first looks to whether the claim
recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods
of organizing human activity such as a fundamental
economic practice, or mental processes); and

(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed.,
Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)).
See Rev. Guid. 52, 55–56. Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception
and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, does
the Office then look to whether the claim:
Appeal 2018-005608
Application 14/146,481

10

(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
are 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.
Id. at 56.
We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. Unless
otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as
our own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis and clarification
with respect to the Revised Guidance.

Alice STEP 1-ABSTRACT IDEA
Step 2A–Prongs 1 and 2 identified in the Revised Guidance
Step 2A, Prong One
In applying the process of the Revised Guidance, we first find whether
the claimed steps comprise “mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or
mental processes.” The Examiner finds that the claims are ineligible
because they are directed to an exception to patent eligibility, being directed
to the abstract idea of “gathering profile information, analyzing it and using
rules to determine and send options” to a user. Final Act. 8. We agree with
the Examiner that the claimed “[r]anking and separating customers into a
specific order and segments illustrates concepts where information is
classified or ranked and stored or segmented in an organized manner.” Id.
The Examiner’s characterization of the claim falls into the category of
methods of organizing human activity. Rev. Guid. 52 n.13 (identifying the
Appeal 2018-005608
Application 14/146,481

11

exception as including, inter alia, “advertising, marketing or sales activities
or behaviors”). Specifically, claim 1 recites “ranking . . . based on a first
type of customer usage information.” Claim 1 further recites that “a first
dynamic boundary that is defined relative to the first type of customer usage
information such that . . . two segments comprise a defined percentage of
customer profiles.” A “template” is claimed for storing the boundaries.
Claims 5, 13, 18.
The Specification describes “customer usage information” as
including customer revenue. Spec. ¶ 27. The Specification explains how
the invention “may be used to generate upgrade options or sales leads” and
“a user may wish to complete a marketing analysis to compare customers
within the same segment.” Id. ¶¶ 23, 24 (emphasis added). Thus, the record
supports our determination that the abstract idea is directed to a method of
organizing human activity, including “marketing or sales activities or
behaviors.”
We also agree with the Examiner that TLI Communications finds
classifying and storing digital images is a similar method of organizing
human activity. Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 3 (finding the claims and TLI
Communications both “sort[] and classif[y] digital data that is stored in an
organized manner”). Furthermore, we are not persuaded by Appellant that
TLI Communications is not analogous. Appellant argues the claimed
invention claims to:
dynamically determine at run-time profiles belonging to a
particular segment based on segment values and moving segment
boundaries, performing comparisons, and based on the above
processing, generating previously undetermined service
enhancement options to send to a particular profile identified
based on a segment value.
Appeal 2018-005608
Application 14/146,481

12

App. Br. 17 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 4–5 (arguing TLI
Communications is not analogous for similar reasons).
The Examiner acknowledges data organized is different as between
the rejected claims and TLI Communications, but argues:
TLI illustrates a concept similar to that claimed since ranking and
separating customers into a specific order illustrates sorting and
classification of digital data that is then stored in that organized
manner is functionally similar to the ability to classify and store
data in an organized manner, and was established as an abstract
idea by the courts.
Ans. 3 (emphasis added). We agree that the argued differences remain
organizational in nature, relating to sorting, classifying, and storing data.
Appellant’s arguments above are similar in that sorting relates to
“determining,” classifying relates to “generating . . . enhancement options,”
and storing data relates to sending the stored enhancement options to a
particular profile. See App. Br. 17. Indeed, the Specification describes
“service enhancement opportunities” as “upgrade options, or sales leads
based on the categorizing and analysis.” Spec. ¶ 15 (emphasis added).
The arguments which purportedly distinguish FairWarning,
Classen, and CyberSource are not enough to persuade us that the
claims are not similar to claims which our reviewing court has found
directed to abstract ideas. That the subject matter is different in
FairWarning does not preclude its application to the general category
of organizing human activity. Adding an additional step following the
“determined information,” as in Classen’s eligible patent claims, does
not sufficiently distinguish Classen over the rejected claims for
purposes of determining whether they are directed to certain methods
Appeal 2018-005608
Application 14/146,481

13

of organizing the human activity relating to marketing or sales. As
was the case with CyberSource and as discussed in more detail in
connection with Prong Two of the Revised Guidance and Step 2B, we
are not persuaded that the claims here are “rooted in technology.”
Step 2A, Prong Two
Under Prong Two of the Revised Guidance, we must determine
whether there are “additional elements that integrate the [judicial] exception
into a practical application.” Rev. Guid., 84 Fed. Reg. at 54; see MPEP
§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). Appellant contends the rejected claims are “an
improvement to technology”7 and “are analogous to the claims of Enfish,
LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” App. Br. 22–23.
Further, Appellant argues that “in Enfish, the Federal Circuit noted that
“‘[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology
just as hardware improvements can[.]’” Id. (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at
1335). The Revised Guidance is in agreement that “software-based
innovations can [also] make ‘non-abstract improvements to computer
technology’ and be deemed patent-eligible . . . at step 1 [of the Mayo/Alice
test].” Rev. Guid. 52 n.11 (citing Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879
F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
Initially, we note that the rejected claims are clearly directed to
software, not hardware.8 See Spec. ¶ 31 (explaining software can

7 We acknowledge that some of these considerations may be properly
evaluated under Step 2 of Alice (Step 2B of Revised Guidance). Solely for
purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the Office, we evaluate
it under step 1 of Alice (Step 2A of Revised Guidance).
8 While claim 16’s preamble recites a “computer system,” the recited
processor includes method steps, e.g., “rank a set of customer profiles.”
Appeal 2018-005608
Application 14/146,481

14

“transform[] the computer system . . . in part into a particular machine”),
Figs. 2 and 3 (flow charts of method). Quoting from Enfish, Appellant
argues “the claims are directed to an improvement of an existing technology
is bolstered by the specification's teachings that the claimed invention
achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased
flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements.” App. Br.
22 (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337). Appellant’s argues the rejected claims
“recite an improvement to technology that facilitates the handling of 2
million units of data in a manner as simple as handing two units of data.” Id.
at 23 (citing Final Act. 5). Appellant concludes the rejected claims “are
analogous to the Enfish claims . . . in that the claims provide a clear
improvement to database technology and which involve a practical use of
determined data.” Id. at 23.
We are not persuaded that the recited limitations here are
improvements to database technology like hardware. See Enfish, 822 F.3d
1335. A “database” is recited only in dependent claims 8, 17, and 18 in the
instant application and then only in the normal understanding of the function
of a database. For example, claim 8 recites “customer usage information is
updated periodically in a customer information database.” Appellant quotes
the Examiner’s finding that “‘[w]hile paragraphs [0017, 0024-0025] do
describe that possibly large quantities of data could require changes, neither
the specification nor the claims realize any improvement to the computer or
another technology nor do the claims require these massive data sets.’”
App. Br. 22–23 (quoting Final Act. 5).
Thus, we find that Appellant’s claims do not improve the functioning
of a computer, improve any other technology or technology field. See Rev.
Appeal 2018-005608
Application 14/146,481

15

Guid., 54–55 (Prong Two: If the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception,
Evaluate Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a Practical
Application). Accordingly, we determine the rejected claims do not
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Alice STEP 2–INVENTIVE CONCEPT
Step 2B identified in the Revised Guidance
Next, we determine whether the claim includes additional elements
that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, thereby
providing an inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 72–73). Appellant contends:
Additionally, the boundaries may be redefined on a
periodic basis, and if the boundaries change, customers may be
reassigned to a new segment based on the change in boundaries.
However, not every customer may be reassigned by changes in
boundaries and/or by changes in customer usage information. By
contrast, if the segment were associated to the individual
customers, for example as a state of a customer record, each of
the customers might need to be reassigned every time thresholds
changed, for example possibly changing hundreds, thousands, or
tens of thousands of customer records.
App. Br. 24 (quoting Spec. ¶ 17).
We agree with the Examiner that the claimed combination of steps
does not recite anything beyond computer elements that are used in well-
understood, routine, conventional activity. See Final Act. 7. Specifically,
the Examiner finds “[t]he ability to gather, send and receive data performed
by the generic computer functions are considered well-understood, routine
and conventional activities that could be performed by any computer
implementation.” Id.
Appeal 2018-005608
Application 14/146,481

16

Appellant relies on BASCOM Global Internet Services Inc. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016), arguing:
the pending claims recite an ordered combination of pieces that
amount to significantly more. Specifically, as discussed above,
the claims provide a technical solution that dynamically modifies
the assignment of customer profiles to segments based on
changes to segment boundary definitions based on a percentage
of customer profiles assigned to the segments without requiring
each customer profile to be individually reassigned through the
modification of a field value of the customer profile.

App. Br. 25 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 17, 24).
BASCOM found the district court analysis deficient because the
“ordered combination of limitations” was “similar to an obviousness
analysis.” BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1349–1350. The BASCOM case
identified both “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of
known, conventional pieces.” Id. at 1350. BASCOM concluded, in
part, that “[t]he claims do not merely recite the abstract idea of
filtering content along with the requirement to perform it on the
Internet, or to perform it on a set of generic computer components.”
Id.
BASCOM is different than the facts present here. Rather,
method steps of the abstract idea are performed by conventional
computer components. Claim 16, discussed above is instructive. For
example, a “processor” is recited to perform method steps. Unlike the
location of the filtering tool in BASCOM, the claims here do not
contain an inventive concept. Id.
Appellant next argues the Examiner:

Appeal 2018-005608
Application 14/146,481

17

failed to identify a citation to an express statement by Appellant
admitting the alleged well-understood, routine, and conventional
nature of the claim elements, a citation to a court decision finding
the same claim elements as well-understood, routine, and
conventional, a citation to a publication indicating the well-
understood, routine, and conventional nature of the claim
elements, or a statement of official notice of the well-understood,
routine, and conventional nature of the claim elements, the
Office’s rejection under Step 2B of the Alice test for patentability
is deficient and results in a failure by the Office to establish a
prima facie case of ineligibility.

Reply Br. 10–11 (citing Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed.
Cir. 2018); see also USPTO Memorandum of April 19, 2018,
CHANGES IN EXAMINATION PROCEDURE PERTAINING TO SUBJECT
MATTER ELIGIBILITY, RECENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY DECISION
(BERKHEIMER V. HP, INC.) (“Berkheimer Memorandum”).
We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the
claims “[t]he ability to gather, send and receive data performed by the
generic computer functions are considered well-understood, routine and
conventional activities that could be performed by any computer
implementation.” Final Act. 7. The Specification supports the Examiner’s
finding, listing generic components for the “computer implemented
method.” Spec. ¶ 16 (database of customer and network information), ¶ 18
(computer system server to run analysis applications and work stations). We
find the claims do not include a specific limitation or a combination of
elements that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
See Revised Guidance (Step 2B: If the Claim Is Directed to a Judicial
Exception, Evaluate Whether the Claim Provides an Inventive Concept);
Berkheimer Memorandum 3 (finding is well-understood, routine,
Appeal 2018-005608
Application 14/146,481

18

conventional if Examiner can readily conclude “that the “element(s) is
widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry”); see also
Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 890 F.3d 1354, 1359
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring) (“[T]he ‘inventive concept’ cannot
be the abstract idea itself”).
We conclude claims 1, 3–8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16–19, and 21 are directed
to organizing human activity and are (as discussed above) directed to an
abstract idea, without reciting significantly more. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of claims 1, 3–8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16–19, and
21.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims under § 101.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–8, 10, 11, 13, 14,
16–19, and 21 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED