Michael Winlo et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 13, 2019

14170564 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 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.
14/170,564 01/31/2014 Michael Winlo 60152-0169 4569
115191 7590 09/13/2019
Hickman Palermo Becker Bingham / Palantir
1 Almaden Boulevard, Floor 12
San Jose, CA 95113
EXAMINER
HOLCOMB, MARK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2019 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL WINLO and AVANTI SHRIKUMAR
____________

Appeal 2018-007064
Application 14/170,564
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final
rejection of claims 11–20. Claims 1–10 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Palantir Technologies,
Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-007064
Application 14/170,564

2
Representative Claim
Representative claim 11 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis
added):

11. A method comprising:
storing member objects that describe healthcare recipients;
storing healthcare event objects that describe healthcare
services received by the healthcare recipients from one or more
healthcare providers;
correlating the healthcare event objects to corresponding
member objects of the member objects;
executing one or more first rules to generate missing
service reports each of which identifies for a particular member
object one or more healthcare services that are expected to occur
within a certain time period for the particular healthcare recipient
for which no healthcare event records exists for the particular
member object, wherein the one or more rules associate each of
a plurality of different service types with one or more specific
member characteristics and one or more specific timeframes in
which a member possessing the specific member characteristics
should receive that type of service;
in response to generating the missing service reports,
based on the missing service reports, executing one or more
second rules to generate member priority scores for the member
objects, wherein the member priority scores are computed as a
function of an estimated value of providing the one or more
healthcare services and an estimated likelihood that a member
will receive the one or more healthcare services without
intervention;
based on the member priority scores, identifying a first set
of high priority member objects;
wherein the method is performed by one or more
computing devices.
App. Br. 9–10 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2018-007064
Application 14/170,564

3

Rejection on Appeal2
The Examiner rejected claims 11–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.3 See Non-Final Act. 2.

Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 11 as being directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter?
ANALYSIS
A. Section 101 Case Law
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a patent may be obtained “[for] any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof.” The Supreme Court has “. . . long held
that this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
The Supreme Court in Alice reiterated the two-step framework previously
set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,

2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4–10 under
35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112, in light of Appellants’ cancellation of claims 1–
10 in Appellants’ Amendment filed January 15, 2018, as indicated in the
Advisory Action issued January 22, 2018 (“Advisory Action”). See
Advisory Action at 2.
3 We select claim 11 as representative. Separate patentability, in compliance
with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv), is not argued for claims 12–20. Accordingly,
except for our ultimate decision, the rejection of claims 12–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 is not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2018-007064
Application 14/170,564

4
566 U.S. 66 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. The first step in that
analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts,” such as an abstract idea. Id. The Court
acknowledged in Mayo that “all inventions at some level embody, use,
reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract
ideas.” Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71. Therefore, we look to whether the claims
focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology
or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and
otherwise merely recite generic processes and machinery. See Enfish, LLC
v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). If the claims are
not directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry ends. Otherwise, the inquiry
proceeds to the second step, in which the elements of the claims are
considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine
whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a
patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S.
at 79, 78).
B. USPTO Section 101 Guidance
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) recently
published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO’s
January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER
ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 50–57 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised
Guidance”). Under the Revised Guidance, we first look to whether the
claim recites:
Appeal 2018-007064
Application 14/170,564

5
(1) (Step 2A – Prong One) 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) (Step 2A – Prong Two) 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)).4
See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. Only if a claim (1) recites a
judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical
application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception.
See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.

4 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). See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
Appeal 2018-007064
Application 14/170,564

6
C. Examiner’s § 101 Rejection Alice/Mayo – Steps 1 and 2
C.1. USPTO Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong One
Applying step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the Examiner concludes
claim 11 recites and is directed to an abstract idea. More specifically, the
Examiner concludes:
The abstract idea in independent [claim 11] . . . is embodied in
the claim and is identified as: in response to generating a missing
service report identifying a service expected to occur but for
which no record exists for a member object using rules
associating service types with characteristics and relevant
specific timeframes, generating priority scores for the member
objects as a function of an estimated value of providing the
service and an estimated likelihood that a member will receive
the service without intervention. A system wherein, in response
to generating a missing service report identifying a service
expected to occur but for which no record exists for a member
object using rules associating service types with characteristics
and relevant specific timeframes, generating priority scores for
the member objects as a function of an estimated value of
providing the service and an estimated likelihood that a member
will receive the service without intervention is an abstract idea
because:
(1) it is analogous to the court-defined abstract idea in
Digitech in that it organizes information (missing services for a
patient) through mathematical correlations (scores are
generated based on the missing services for a patient); and/or
(2) it is analogous to the court-defined abstract idea in
Electric Power Group in that it collects information (object
information), analyzes it (determines whether a missing service
report should exist and makes a score based on that missing
service report), and displays certain results (outputs ranked
data) of the collection and analysis.
Non-Final Act. 9–10 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 3–4.
Appeal 2018-007064
Application 14/170,564

7
C.2. USPTO Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong Two
Applying step 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the Examiner concludes:
When viewed as a whole, the claims do not include additional
limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more
than the judicial exception because the claims recite processes
that are routine and well-understood in the art of healthcare
communication systems and simply implement the process or
processes on a computer(s), which is not enough to qualify as
“significantly more” as described herein. Specifically, the
applicant is taking the well-understood wherein, in response to
generating a missing service report identifying a service expected
to occur but for which no record exists for a member object using
rules associating service types with characteristics and relevant
specific timeframes, generating priority scores for the member
objects as a function of an estimated value of providing the
service and an estimated likelihood that a member will receive
the service without intervention, which does not qualify as
significantly more. The claims do not include additional
limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more
than the judicial exception because the additional limitations of
storing data, correlating data and filtering data by scored rank
merely represent insignificant, conventional extra-solution
activities well-understood in the industry of healthcare data
processing systems. Furthermore, the additional elements or
combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract
idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of:
A) generic computer structure that serves to perform generic
computer functions that serve to generally link the abstract idea
to a particular technological environment or field of use
(Applicant’s specification discloses the following material, at the
corresponding paragraphs, to be composed of conventional
hardware: computing hardware (64-67), computing device (64-
67), data repository (252).); and
B) functions that are well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known to the pertinent
industry (i.e., storing, correlating, generating and identifying
data).
Appeal 2018-007064
Application 14/170,564

8
Non-Final Act. 10–11 (emphasis added).
Unlike the claims in McRO, which presented a very specific set
of rules in order to improve a lip animation technique, the present
claims present fairly generic, broad limitations directed to
correlating and generating data. . . . Appellant’s position that
McRO did not set out algorithms is in direct contrast to the claims
of McRO, which clearly provided a very specific set of
algorithms limited to a very particular environment, animating
lips, in contrast to the present invention[.]
. . . .
The mere fact that the present claims are novel does not mean
that they are unconventional under the McRO analysis. . . .
McRO indicates that an “improvement in computer-related
technology” is not limited to improvements in the operation of a
computer or a computer network per se, but may also be claimed
as a set of rules (basically mathematical relationships) that
improve computer-related technology by allowing a computer
performance of a function not previously performable by a
computer. This is distinct from the present invention, where the
Appellant claims that the generic computing functions performed
by generic computing structure was not previously known (not
that it was previously unperformable).
Ans. 6–7 (emphasis added).
C.3 USPTO Revised Guidance Step 2B
Further applying step 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the Examiner
concludes:
Generic computer components recited as performing generic
computer functions that are well-understood, routine and
conventional activities amount to no more than implementing
the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic
computer components to make generic determinations based on
available data, store, communicate and display data does not
impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of
the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do
Appeal 2018-007064
Application 14/170,564

9
not amount to significantly more than the above-identified
judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Non-Final Act. 11 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 8.
D. Appellants’ § 101 Arguments
D.1. Step 2A, Prong 1
D.1.a.
Appellants contend:
Here, the Office Action alleges that claim 11 is directed to
an abstract idea of “in response to generating a missing service
report identifying a service expected to occur but for which no
record exists for a member object using rules associating service
types with characteristics and relevant specific timeframes,
generating priority scores for the member objects as a function
of an estimated value of providing the service and an estimated
likelihood that a member will receive the service without
intervention.” The Office Action bases the determination that the
above element is an abstract idea on surface level comparisons
between the claim element and unpatentable claims in cases such
as Cyberfone, Digitech, and Electric Power Group.
While the three cases mentioned above refer to data
transformations generally, they are distinct from the present
case where the transformations are used to identify services
that have not occurred and prioritize members for outreach. In
Electric Power Group, LLC. v. Alstom S.A., the claims recited
receiving data streams and detecting events in those data streams
based on information in the data streams. The claims in Digitech
Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. recite a method of
generating a device profile by combining two sets of data into a
single profile. The claims in Cyberfone Systems v. CNN
Interactive Group (a non-precedential decision) recited a method
for receiving data, separating the data out into individual
components, and storing the data. None of the cases cited recite
any use of the data, instead claiming data transformations at a
high level. In the present case, the missing service reports
generated by the system are then used to prioritize members for
outreach.
Appeal 2018-007064
Application 14/170,564

10
App. Br. 4–5 (Appellants’ citations omitted; panel’s emphasis added).
D.1.b.
Claim 11 recites the following limitations:
(a) storing member objects that describe healthcare recipients;
(b) storing healthcare event objects that describe healthcare services
received by the healthcare recipients from one or more healthcare providers;
(c) correlating the healthcare event objects to corresponding member
objects of the member objects;
(d) executing one or more first rules to generate missing service
reports each of which identifies for a particular member object one or more
healthcare services that are expected to occur within a certain time period for
the particular healthcare recipient for which no healthcare event records
exists for the particular member object, wherein the one or more rules
associate each of a plurality of different service types with one or more
specific member characteristics and one or more specific timeframes in
which a member possessing the specific member characteristics should
receive that type of service;
(e) in response to generating the missing service reports, based on the
missing service reports, executing one or more second rules to generate
member priority scores for the member objects, wherein the member priority
scores are computed as a function of an estimated value of providing the one
or more healthcare services and an estimated likelihood that a member will
receive the one or more healthcare services without intervention; and
(f) based on the member priority scores, identifying a first set of high
priority member objects.
In short, claim 11 recites, with the exception of generic computer-
Appeal 2018-007064
Application 14/170,564

11
implementation (i.e., “wherein the method is performed by one or more
computing devices,”) a method of storing healthcare recipient data and
healthcare services data, correlating the healthcare recipient data with the
healthcare services data, generating missing service reports that identify
expected healthcare services based on the correlated data via one or more
rules, calculating member priority scores based on the generated missing
service reports via one or more rules, and identifying high priority members
based on the calculated scores. As such, claim 11 is analogous to those
claims the Federal Circuit has found to be directed to an abstract idea. For
example, the Federal Circuit has explained in various cases that steps
involving collecting, analyzing, and organizing information are drawn to an
abstract idea. See Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.,
758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The [claim] recites a process of
taking two data sets and combining them into a single data set, the device
profile. The two data sets are generated by taking existing information . . .
and organizing this information into a new form. The [claim] thus recites an
ineligible abstract process of gathering and combining data that does not
require input from a physical device”); Elec. Power Grp., LLC, v. Alstom,
830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The focus of the asserted claims . . .
is on collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of
the collection and analysis”).
Because the claims involve correlating data and calculating scores
based on the correlated data, the claims recite “mathematical relationships,
mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations,” which are
mathematical concepts. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; see also
Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350 (“The method in the . . . claims an abstract idea
Appeal 2018-007064
Application 14/170,564

12
because it describes a process of organizing information through
mathematical correlations and is not tied to a specific structure or
machine.”). Under the Revised Guidance, mathematical concepts are
identified as a category of abstract ideas. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
52. Accordingly, we conclude that claim 11 recites a mathematical concept,
and, thus, an abstract idea.
D.1.c.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that claim 11 is
different from the claims at issue in Digitech and Electric Power Group
because the claims in the aforementioned cases allegedly refer to data
transformations generally, and claim 11 allegedly recites data
transformations used to identify services that have not occurred and priority
members for outreach. See App. Br. 5. Consistent with the Examiner’s
findings, even assuming arguendo that the argued features are recited in
claim 11, such features do not distinguish claim 11 from the claims at issue
in Digitech and Electric Power Group, as identifying missing services and
prioritizing members for outreach is analogous to the abstract ideas
respectively identified in Digitech and Electric Power Group (i.e.,
organizing information through mathematical correlations; and analyzing,
collecting, and displaying information). See Ans. 4.
D.2. Step 2A, Prong 2
Appellants contend:
The present claims are additionally patentable as significantly
more than an abstract idea because they provide specific
nonconventional rules to solve a particular problem that differ
from prior art ways of solving the problem. Whether claims are
directed to an abstract idea is dependent on whether the claims
are an improvement to a particular type of process or whether
Appeal 2018-007064
Application 14/170,564

13
they “simply use a computer as a tool to automate conventional
activity.” In McRO, the Federal Circuit noted that the
incorporation of claimed rules, not the use of the computer, is
what led to the improvement over conventional methods. Just as
the court in McRO focused on the difference between the rule
based process of the claims and the manual methods performed
by humans, the present claims provide for a specific application
of rules to produce a tangible result in a way that differs from
methods traditionally applied by people.
The Office Action argues that the claims in the present
case are distinguishable from the claims in McRO because the
claims in McRO presented the rules in more detail than the claims
in the present case. Specifically, the Office Action notes that
McRO recited “presented a very specific set of rules in order to
improve a lip animation technique.” Yet the claims in McRO did
not set out the algorithms as argued by the Office Action. Instead,
the claims identified rules that generated a result using a specific
input. The court in McRO did not focus on the specificity or
narrowness of the rules, but instead focused on the fact that the
rules recited a method different from how humans have
historically performed the same task.
The court in McRO held that unconventional ways of
performing prior tasks can still be patent eligible even if the
unconventionality lies in the use of particular rules or
functions. In the present claims, rules are recited for
identifying missing services and prioritizing patients for
outreach. These rules are unconventional in the field and
therefore the rules cannot be considered an abstract idea.
App. Br. 5–6 (Appellants’ citations omitted; panel’s emphasis added).
To the extent that Claim 11 recites claim elements of an
abstract idea, Claim 11 recites significantly more than any
abstract idea. . . . Limitations that may be enough to qualify as
“significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial
exception include: . . . [a]dding a specific limitation other than
what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or
adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a
particular useful application; or [o]ther meaningful limitations
Appeal 2018-007064
Application 14/170,564

14
beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a
particular technological environment.
The elements of Claim [11] comprise significantly more than an
abstract idea because they fall within the categories set forth . . .
above.
Claim 11 recites unconventional steps that confine the
claim to a particular useful application, as evidenced by the
withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Specifically, as noted in the Final Office Action, Claim 11 is non-
obvious over analogous art at least partly due to the recitation of
employing a set of rules to identify missing services and
prioritize members for outreach based on the missing services.
By prioritizing members using the algorithms described in the
specification, a computer is able to direct outreach and cause
tangible benefits outside of the computer system. These
limitations link the claims to a particular technological
environment which uses an object-oriented system to improve
methods of identifying missing services and prioritizing
members for outreach.
App. Br. 7–8 (Appellants’ citations omitted; panel’s emphasis and
formatting added).
In addition to the aforementioned abstract idea, claim 11 recites that
the aforementioned abstract idea “is performed by one or more computing
devices.” The aforementioned element does not transform claim 11 into
something more than the aforementioned abstract idea, because the
aforementioned element does no more than generally link the use of the
aforementioned abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See
MPEP § 2106.05(h); see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839
F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Although [the] . . . claims require the use
of a computer, it is this incorporation of a computer, not the claimed rule,
Appeal 2018-007064
Application 14/170,564

15
that purportedly ‘improve[s] [the] existing technological process’ by
allowing the automation of further tasks.”) (citation omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that claim 11 is
allegedly similar to the claims at issue in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See App. Br. 5–6. Unlike
the claims at issue in McRO, claim 11 fails to recite the technical details that
distinguishes the claimed process of identifying high priority healthcare
recipients from prior processes of identifying high priority healthcare
recipients.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that claim 11
allegedly recites either: (a) unconventional steps that confine the claim to a
particular useful application; or (b) meaningful limitations beyond generally
linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
See App. Br. 7. Appellants support this argument with the contention that
the Examiner withdrew a prior-art rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. See App. Br. 7–8. However, this contention conflates the
non-obviousness test under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with the patent-eligibility test
under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and, thus, is not persuasive.
Accordingly, consistent with the Examiner’s findings, we determine
claim 11 does not include an improvement to another technology or
technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself (see
MPEP § 2106.05(a)), or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(h)). See Non-Final Act. 10–11; see also Ans. 7. Further, in view
of Appellants’ Specification (see, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 64–65, discussed below in
further detail), and consistent with the Examiner’s findings, we conclude
Appeal 2018-007064
Application 14/170,564

16
that claim 11 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. We determine claim 11 does not recite:
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological
environment.
See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). We agree with the Examiner
that claim 11 is directed to a judicial exception.
D.3. Step 2B
Appellants contend:
In Berkheimer v. HP Inc., . . . the Federal Circuit clarified
that whether an additional element represents well-understood,
routine, conventional activity to a skilled artisan at the time of
the patent is a factual determination. Thus, for a determination
that the additional elements alone or in combination do not
amount to significantly more than an abstract idea requires some
showing of fact.
The various Office Actions and [Examiner’s Answer] . . .
fail to provide a showing of fact that the additional elements in
the independent and dependent claims are not sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Reply Br. 1 (Appellants’ citations omitted; panel’s emphasis added).
Consistent with the Examiner’s findings, the recited “one or more
computing devices” are generic computers that perform functions (e.g.,
Appeal 2018-007064
Application 14/170,564

17
storing and correlating data, executing rules to generate reports and to
calculate scores based on the generated reports, and categorizing data) that
are well-understood, routine, and conventional to one of ordinary skill in the
art. See Non-Final Act. 10–11; see also Ans. 7. Further, Appellants’
Specification provides objective evidence that the recited “one or more
computing devices” are generic computer components that perform
functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional to one of
ordinary skill in the art, as shown below:
FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 are illustrative views of various aspects
of an example system 100 in which the techniques described
herein may be practiced, according to an embodiment. System
100 is a computer-based system. The various components of
system 100 are implemented at least partially by hardware at
one or more computing devices, such as one or more hardware
processors executing instructions stored in one or more
memories for performing various functions described herein
. . . .
. . . In an embodiment, system 100 is a server computer
system, comprising one or more server computer devices that
collectively implement the various components of system 100 as
a set of server-side processes. The server computer system may
include web server, application server, database server, and/or
other conventional server components that the depicted
components utilize to provide the described functionality.
Spec. ¶¶ 64–65.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner has
allegedly failed to provide a showing of fact that the additional elements of
claim 11 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea. See Reply Br. 1–2. While patent eligibility is ultimately a question of
law, whether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a
skilled artisan at the time of the invention is a factual determination. See
Appeal 2018-007064
Application 14/170,564

18
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Contrary to
Appellants’ argument, the Examiner provided an objective analysis as to
why the additional element recited in claim 11 beyond the abstract idea (i.e.,
“one or more computing devices”) does not amount to significantly more
than the abstract idea. See Non-Final Act. 10 (describing that the claimed
one or more computer devices was “generic computer structure that serves to
perform generic computer functions that serve to generally link the abstract
idea to a particular technological environment or field of use”). Further, as
found by the Examiner and previously described above, paragraphs 64 and
65 of Appellants’ Specification support the Examiner’s analysis. See
Non-Final Act. 11 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 64–65).
In view of Appellants’ Specification, and consistent with the
Examiner’s determinations, we determine the claims do not recite:
(vi) a specific limitation other than what is well-understood,
routine, conventional activity in the field or
unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular
useful application.
See MPEP § 2106.05(d).

CONCLUSION
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 11–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
(2) Claims 11–20 are not patentable.

We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal 2018-007064
Application 14/170,564

19
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).

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
11–20 § 101 11–20

AFFIRMED