Rajamani, Nithya et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 17, 2019

12824701 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 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.
12/824,701 06/28/2010 Nithya Rajamani IN920100053US1(790.068) 1359
89885 7590 12/17/2019
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
SCHEUNEMANN, RICHARD N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2019 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NITHYA RAJAMANI and
ANUPAM SARONWALA

Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701
Technology Center 3600

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–25. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International
Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to “maintain[ing] right
relationships with key decision making individuals” (Spec., para. 1).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
utilizing at least one processor to execute computer code
that performs the steps of:
representing supplier nodes in a supplier side of a
machine-generated network representation, wherein the
machine-generated network representation comprises the
supplier side and a client side and wherein the machine-
generated network representation is represented as a social
network from a perspective of the supplier side;
representing client nodes in the client side of the
machine-generated network representation, the client nodes
corresponding to at least one customer of at least one supplier
node and wherein each of the client nodes comprises a global
orientation towards the supplier side and a current orientation
towards the supplier side;
establishing a supplier-client relationship in the network
representation, wherein establishing comprises identifying at
least one interaction between the at least one customer of at
least one supplier node and at least one client node and
wherein each of the at least one interactions affects the global
orientation and the current orientation and wherein an
orientation outcome is identified from the at least one
interaction, wherein the orientation outcome identifies a level
of positive or negative outcome resulting from the at least one
interaction;
recording a supplier-client relationship score from at
least one supplier node participating in the supplier-client
relationship, the score corresponding to relationship strength
of the supplier-client relationship, wherein the relationship
strength is based on the at least one interaction and the
orientation outcome of the at least one interaction;
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

3
calculating a global net orientation score of a client
node, corresponding to a general relationship strength of the
client node with respect to the supplier nodes in aggregate,
wherein the global net orientation score is calculated based
upon the recorded supplier-client relationship scores
associated with the client node and wherein the global net
orientation score is reflected in the global orientation of the
client node;
iteratively amending the supplier-client relationship
score after a predetermined time period and based upon
recorded interactions and orientation outcomes of the recorded
interactions between the supplier and client and amending the
global net orientation score of the client node based upon the
amended supplier-client relationship score and providing an
analysis of the supplier-client relationship, wherein the analysis
identifies coverage with individuals from the client node,
whether the supplier-client relationship is fault-tolerant, and
identifies areas of concern comprising individuals from the
client node having a negative orientation towards the supplier
and wherein the machine-generated network representation is
updated based upon the amended supplier–client relationship
score;
analyzing an effect, on the global net orientation score of
a client node, of a proposed interaction in the supplier-client
relationship, wherein the analyzing comprises updating the
supplier-client relationship score based upon the proposed
interaction, updating the global net orientation score based
upon the updated supplier-client relationship score and
determining the difference between the amended global net
orientation score and the updated global net orientation score;
and
providing a recommendation with respect to the
proposed interaction based upon the analyzed effect on the
global net orientation score.
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

4
REJECTION
Claims 1–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
judicially-excepted subject matter.
OPINION
Preliminary comments
The Appellant argued these claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 23–35.
We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and the
remaining claims 2–25 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019), hereinafter “2019 Revised 101 Guidance,”
supersedes the earlier guidance that was in effect at the time the Appeal
Brief was filed. Id. at 51 (“Eligibility–related guidance issued prior to the
Ninth Edition, R–08.2017, of the MPEP (published Jan. 2018) should not be
relied upon.”). Accordingly, our analysis will not address the sufficiency of
the Examiner’s rejection against the Office’s previous guidance. Rather, our
analysis will comport with the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance.
Introduction
35 U.S.C. § 101 provides that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any
new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or
any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor.”
In that regard, claim 1 covers a “process” and is thus statutory subject
matter for which a patent may be obtained.2 This is not in dispute.

2 This discussion corresponds to Step 1 of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance
which requires determining whether a “claim is to a statutory category.”
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

5
Section 101, however, “contains an important implicit exception:
Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.”
Alice Corp. 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)).
In that regard, notwithstanding claim 1 covers statutory subject
matter, the Examiner has raised a question of patent eligibility on the ground
that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Alice identifies a two-step framework for determining whether
claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Alice step one – the “directed to” inquiry
According to Alice step one, “[w]e must first determine whether the
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Id. at 218
(emphasis added).
The Examiner determined, inter alia, that “[t]he present claims recite
a business process that could be implemented mentally or on paper, but a
general purpose computer is recited for implementation.”
The claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter
because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e.,
a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea)
without significantly more. The method of exemplary claim 1
sets out six steps whereby: (a) supplier nodes are represented in
a network representation; (b) client nodes are represented in a
network representation; (c) a supplier-client relationship is
established in the network representation; (d) a score from a
supplier node corresponding to the relationship strength of the
supplier-client relationship is recorded; (e) a score ("global net

84 Fed. Reg. at 53; see also id. at 53–54 (“consider[ ] whether the claimed
subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject
matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101”).
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

6
orientation score") corresponding to a relationship strength of
the client node with respect to the supplier is calculated; (f) the
supplier-client relationship score and global net orientation
score after a predetermined time period is amended; and (g) the
effect of an interaction in the relationship is analyzed and (h) a
recommendation is provided based on the analysis. All these
steps are known operations for creating a relationship
representation, analyzing the relationship using the
representation, and providing a result of the analysis, albeit
performed in the context of a supplier-client environment. The
use of known operations distinguished only by context adds
little to patentably transform the relationship representation
abstract idea. Cf. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
654 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("The Court [Parker v.
Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978)] rejected the notion that the
recitation of a practical application for the calculation could
alone make the invention patentable."). Also, many of the
recited steps are not linked to any device and thus could be
practiced mentally. Adding mental steps cannot patentably
transform an otherwise abstract idea into an inventive concept.
In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("[Mental
processes-or processes of human thinking-standing alone are
not patentable even if they have practical application.").
Final Act. 4–5.
The Appellant contends, inter alia that, “the claims are directed to a
specific solution to a problem and are thus directed to improvements in a
technological field, specifically, the technological field of understanding
relationship dynamics.” Appeal Br. 27.
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not
directed to an abstract idea. Rather, Applicant respectfully
submits that the claims are directed to providing
recommendations regarding proposed interactions between a
supplier and client based upon identifying the effect of the
proposed interaction on the client-supplier relationship, where
the effect is determined using a machine-generated
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

7
representation including nodes representing the supplier and
client and an identified relationship between the supplier and
client and based upon a determined effect on a global net
orientation score assigned to a client node that is adjusted based
upon positive and negative interactions between the supplier
and client. See Claim 1. Applicant respectfully submits that this
is not an abstract idea. Applicant respectfully submits that the
claims are directed to technological improvements to the
technological field of understanding relationship dynamics. See
Specification at [001] - [002] and [0024]. Specifically, the
claimed limitations provide a method for providing
recommendations regarding proposed interactions that provide
a user a technique for managing relationships in a manner that
is most beneficial for the supplier. See Claim 1. Accordingly,
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not simply
directed to an abstract idea.
Id. at 27–28. See also id. at 28 (“Applicant respectfully points to the
specification which identifies that the claimed invention achieves benefits
over conventional techniques for understanding relationship
dynamics. See Specification at [0023] - [0027].”) and 29:
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are directed to an
improvement in existing computer technology, as the
specification identifies benefits of the currently claimed
limitations over conventional techniques for understanding
relationship dynamics. Specifically, the claimed limitations
provide a technique that can assess relationships and proposed
interactions within the relationship and provide a
recommendation with regard to a proposed interaction that is
automated and consistent because a computer performs the
assessments. See Claim 1.
Accordingly, there is a dispute over what claim 1 is directed to. Is it
directed to “creating a relationship representation, analyzing the relationship
using the representation, and providing a result of the analysis, albeit
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

8
performed in the context of a supplier-client environment” (Final Act. 4) or
“improvements in a technological field” (Appeal Br. 27)?
Claim Construction3
We consider the claim as a whole4 giving it the broadest reasonable
construction5 as one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted it in
light of the specification6 at the time of filing.
Claim 1 calls upon “at least one processor to execute computer code
that performs” eight steps. The steps are, generally: (a) “representing” A; (b)

3 “[T]he important inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim.”
Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336,
1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “In Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the court observed that
‘claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity
determination under § 101.’ However, the threshold of § 101 must be
crossed; an event often dependent on the scope and meaning of the claims.”
Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1347–48
(Fed. Cir. 2015).

4 “In determining the eligibility of respondents’ claimed process for patent
protection under § 101, their claims must be considered as a whole.”
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (1981).

5 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, page 53, footnote 14 (If a claim, under its
broadest reasonable interpretation . . . .”) (emphasis added.)

6 “First, it is always important to look at the actual language of the claims.
. . . Second, in considering the roles played by individual limitations, it is
important to read the claims ‘in light of the specification.’” Smart Systems
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (J. Linn, dissenting in part and concurring in part), citing Enfish,
LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016), among
others.

Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

9
“representing” B; (c) “establishing” C; (d) “recording” D; (e) “calculating”
E; (f) “iteratively amending” D “after a predetermined time period and based
upon” F; (g) “analyzing” G; and (h) “providing” H;
where
A is “supplier nodes in a supplier side of a machine-generated
network representation, wherein the machine-generated
network representation comprises the supplier side and a
client side and wherein the machine-generated network
representation is represented as a social network from a
perspective of the supplier side”;
B is “client nodes in the client side of the machine-generated
network representation, the client nodes corresponding to at
least one customer of at least one supplier node and wherein
each of the client nodes comprises a global orientation
towards the supplier side and a current orientation towards
the supplier side”;
C is “a supplier-client relationship in the network
representation, wherein establishing comprises identifying at
least one interaction between the at least one customer of at
least one supplier node and at least one client node and
wherein each of the at least one interactions affects the
global orientation and the current orientation and wherein an
orientation outcome is identified from the at least one
interaction, wherein the orientation outcome identifies a
level of positive or negative outcome resulting from the at
least one interaction”;
D is “a supplier-client relationship score from at least one
supplier node participating in the supplier-client
relationship, the score corresponding to relationship strength
of the supplier-client relationship, wherein the relationship
strength is based on the at least one interaction and the
orientation outcome of the at least one interaction”;
E is “a global net orientation score of a client node,
corresponding to a general relationship strength of the client
node with respect to the supplier nodes in aggregate,
wherein the global net orientation score is calculated based
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

10
upon the recorded supplier-client relationship scores
associated with the client node and wherein the global net
orientation score is reflected in the global orientation of the
client node”;
F is “recorded interactions and orientation outcomes of the
recorded interactions between the supplier and client and
amending the global net orientation score of the client node
based upon the amended supplier-client relationship score
and providing an analysis of the supplier-client relationship,
wherein the analysis identifies coverage with individuals
from the client node, whether the supplier-client relationship
is fault-tolerant, and identifies areas of concern comprising
individuals from the client node having a negative
orientation towards the supplier and wherein the machine-
generated network representation is updated based upon the
amended supplier client relationship score”;
G is “an effect, on the global net orientation score of a client
node, of a proposed interaction in the supplier-client
relationship, wherein the analyzing comprises updating the
supplier-client relationship score based upon the proposed
interaction, updating the global net orientation score based
upon the updated supplier-client relationship score and
determining the difference between the amended global net
orientation score and the updated global net orientation
score”; and,
H is “a recommendation with respect to the proposed
interaction based upon the analyzed effect on the global net
orientation score.”
The “at least one processor to execute computer code that performs”
is known and generic.7 See Spec., para. 18 (“computer system 100 . . . may
be an electronic device such as a laptop or desktop personal computer”).

7 Cf. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d
1332, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“the claims recite [ ] a generic computer
element—a processor— …”); Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F.
App’x. 1005, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (nonprecedential) (“the claims at issue [
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

11
We reasonably broadly construe claim 1 as being directed to
developing a relationship representation employing a generic computer.
The Abstract Idea8
Just above where we reproduce claim 1, we identify in italics the
limitations we believe recite an abstract idea.
The recited italicized limitations, individually and collectively,
describe mental processes; that is: (a) “representing”; (b) “representing”;
(c) “establishing”; (d) “recording”; (e) “calculating”; (f) “iteratively
amending … after a predetermined time period”; (g) “analyzing”; and
(h) “providing” various types of information. These concepts are akin to
making observations and evaluations that can be performed in the human
mind and thus are matters that fall within the “Mental processes”
enumerated grouping of abstract ideas, both as to each claim limitation and
the claim as a whole.9

] require ‘a computer with a central processing unit,’ ‘a memory,’ ‘an input
and output terminal,’ ‘a printer,’ in some cases ‘a video screen,’ and ‘a
program . . . enabling’ the steps of managing a game of bingo. . . the claims
recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.”);
Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., 680 F. App’x 977, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(nonprecedential) (“we find here that ‘interfaces,’ ‘program stores,’ and
‘processors’ are all generic computer components.”)
8 This corresponds to Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. Step 2A
determines “whether a claim is ‘directed to’ a judicial exception,” such as an
abstract idea. 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. Step 2A is a
two prong inquiry.
9 This corresponds to Prong One [“Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a
Judicial Exception”] (b) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “To
determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners
are now to: … (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within
the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section 1 of the
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

12
Improvement in the Functioning of a Computer10 (Appellant’s
Argument)
The Examiner’s characterization of what the claim is directed to
(“creating a relationship representation, analyzing the relationship using the
representation, and providing a result of the analysis, albeit performed in the
context of a supplier-client environment” (Final Act. 4)) is similar to our
own (developing a relationship representation employing a generic
computer), albeit ours is described at a higher level of abstraction. Cf. Apple,
Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240–41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An
abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As
the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as
generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first

[2019 Revised 101 Guidance].” Id. at 54. This case implicates subject matter
grouping “(c)”:
(c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind
(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Id. at 52.
10 This corresponds to Prong Two (“If the Claim Recites a Judicial
Exception, Evaluate Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a
Practical Application”) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. 2019
Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. “A claim that integrates a judicial
exception into a practical application will 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.” Id. One consideration, implicated here,
that is “indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements)[]
may have integrated the exception into a practical application” (id. at 55) is
if “[a]n additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a
computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field” (id.).

Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

13
menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described
in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from
restaurant customers on a computer.”) Presumably, the Appellant would
challenge our characterization in a way similar to the Appellant’s challenge
of the Examiner’s characterization as set forth in the briefs.
We have reviewed the record and are unpersuaded as to error in our or
the Examiner’s characterization of what claim 1 is directed to.
Appellant argues that the “the claims are directed to a specific
solution to a problem and are thus directed to improvements in a
technological field, specifically, the technological field of understanding
relationship dynamics.” Appeal Br. 32. Appellant seeks to make the case
that
the claims are directed to an improvement in existing computer
technology, as the specification identifies benefits of the
currently claimed limitations over conventional techniques for
understanding relationship dynamics. Specifically, the claimed
limitations provide a technique that can assess relationships and
proposed interactions within the relationship and provide a
recommendation with regard to a proposed interaction that is
automated and consistent because a computer performs the
assessments.
Id. at 29.
We are unpersuaded that claim 1 is directed to a technological
problem with “processors.” To the extent that the Appellant means to argue
that the recited steps functionally improve the “processor” (claim 1), neither
Appellant nor the Specification adequately explains how that is so.
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

14
Appellant directs our attention to paras. 23–27 of the Specification as
“describ[ing] the specific technical improvements to programming that
permit the system to understand relationship dynamics in novel, nonobvious
ways.” Id. at 31. We reproduce paras. 23–27:
[0023] In accordance with embodiments of the invention, the
network is populated individually by a service delivery team,
by recording their relationship interactions on a regular basis
with client side management at a peer level and above. The
details of the interaction are anonymized outside of an
individual's access, so privacy is maintained. A global analysis
reports whether each relationship with a key decision maker is
fault-tolerant overall, wherein there are multiple channels in
client organization being leveraged by service provider to
influence the key decision maker perceptions. Analyses at
individual levels can suggest how individuals can improve their
reach to key decision makers (e.g., via suggesting alternative
paths through individuals in the client organization who have
been reported to have a net positive orientation). Apart from the
reach, the analysis can also suggest the weaker spots in the
client organization where positive efforts need to be made to
enable over-recovery of service failure. For example, consider a
situation where client x is involved in a service interaction with
supplier y and though the delivery is done well in the end, there
were some unexpected failures and delays in execution of the
service due to which the perception of client x (e.g., at the level
of Executive Director) might not be an ideal one with respect to
the provider. In that context, assume as well that there was
another favorable effort executed in connection with a client z
in the same organization (e.g., IT department manager). It
should thus be appreciated that if z (or someone in the
command line chain of y) communicates this favorable
impression of y to x, whether formally or informally, perception
of the client x can be enhanced overall even if client x does not
have a need to know.

Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

15
[0024] It will be appreciated herein that a tool in accordance
with embodiments of the invention, and analysis employed in
connection therewith, can be helpful to guide a team that is
geographically disperse while also assisting new team members
in understanding relationship dynamics. The tool is also helpful
to assess the impact of a governance change in a client
organization.

[0025] In accordance with embodiments of the invention, a
social network of service provider and service recipient teams is
developed, and this network is analyzed from a global
perspective of the provider organization, that is, the
representation and analysis and recommendations are internally
driven by a service provider organization. Informal and formal
relationships alike can be noted in the network representation.
The nodes in the networks are team members from the provider
and client organizations. The key decision makers in the client
organizations are marked out in the graph. Each of the client
nodes (node where client team members are represented), has
an orientation which reflects whether the person has a positive
orientation or negative orientation overall, globally and at a
current point in time, towards the service provider organization.
The client organization and the internal relationships can
initially be assumed to be embodied by formal and functional
relationships that are already well known and established, and
yet can be adapted at later times based on further learning and
input.

[0026] In accordance with embodiments of the invention, each
service provider member updates on a regular basis (e.g.,
weekly), their interactions with client individuals at peer and
higher levels and updates on the strength of interactions and
how much of a positive or negative outcome resulted from it
(e.g., on a scale of 0 to 10). The actual details from an
individual perspective need not be revealed to anyone apart
from the individual constructing it; instead, what becomes
exposed globally is the aggregate orientations, connection paths
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

16
in the network and the strength of the connections, where
permitted by individual supplier nodes.

[0027] In accordance with embodiments of the invention, each
client node is updated at regular intervals even if there are no
obtained in connection with relationships that are affected
through any particular incidents. This is so that at a global level
actions can be taken to over-recover from, or compensate for,
the situations in a subtle manner when they happen, and even
when they don't, the overall network updates the orientations
based on the history and any new events. At an individual level,
each provider member gets an update on how much of coverage
they have with the key decision makers and channels they can
leverage to improve their coverage. At global level, the
relationship owner gets a picture on the complete coverage with
key individuals (e.g., executives) and whether it is fault-tolerant
(e.g., survives losing a single breakage in a relationship). It also
shows areas of concern globally (e.g., individuals on the client
side having a net negative orientation) which needs to be
corrected through service recovery strategies. All of this takes
place, in accordance with embodiments of the invention, while
maintaining individual network strengths in privacy.
We do not see any “specific technical improvements to programming”
mentioned there.
It is true that specific asserted improvements in, for example,
computer capabilities, when claimed, can render claimed subject matter not
directed to an abstract idea. Cf. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
America, Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“When looked at as a
whole, claim 1 is directed to a patentable, technological improvement over
the existing, manual 3–D animation techniques.”). But, there is insufficient
evidence in the record before us that the claimed subject matter reflects any
such improvement.
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

17
“The ‘abstract idea’ step of the inquiry calls upon us to look at the
‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art’ to determine if the claim’s
‘character as a whole’ is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Affinity Labs
of Texas v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
2016); see also Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. See also Ancora Technologies, Inc.
v. HTC America, Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 47 (Fed. Cir. 2018):
We examine the patent’s “‘claimed advance’ to
determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.”
Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat System, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303
(Fed. Cir. 2018). “In cases involving software innovations, this
inquiry often turns on whether the claims focus 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.’” Id. (quoting Enfish,
822 F.3d at 1335–36); see BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
899 F.3d 1281, 1285–86 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Computers are
improved not only through changes in hardware; “[s]oftware
can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology .
. . . ” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335; see Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1304.
We have several times held claims to pass muster under Alice
step one when sufficiently focused on such improvements.
The Specification’s description of the problem and solution shows the
advance over the prior art by the claimed invention is in developing a
relationship representation, not on any improvement in computer
functionality. According to the Specification,
In management literature, it is well known that
relationships play a key role in increasing client loyalty and
hence revenue growth of a firm. However, continuing to
manage the relationships has been mostly an informal and
"soft" exercise
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

18
that is done at the discretion of an individual and driven by
appropriate incentives to drive beneficial interactions. The
social interactions are also managed at an individual level rather
than an organizational level, whereas maintaining service level
agreements are discussed as "hard" factors in several formal
and informal interactions at more global levels.
Para. 2.
We have carefully reviewed the Specification but can find no
disclosure of a technical improvement. It is true that in various places in the
Specification various “improvements” are suggested. Notwithstanding many
of the discussed improvements depend on using a processor, there is no
suggestion in the Specification that the subject matter claimed means to
solve a problem associated with the processor. The heart of the invention, as
claimed, is using a generic “processor” to practice the claimed scheme,
which “processor” is plainly generic and does not change upon
implementation of the recited scheme. Cf. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Erie Indemnity Company, 850 F.3d 1315, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[T]he
heart of the claimed invention lies in creating and using an index to search
for and retrieve data . . . an abstract concept.”)
The Specification attributes no special meaning to (a) “representing”;
(b) “representing”; (c) “establishing”; (d) “recording”; (e) “calculating”;
(f) “iteratively amending … after a predetermined time period”;
(g) “analyzing”; and (h) “providing” with respect to the “processor”
(claim 1). In our view, consistent with the Specification, these are common
processing functions one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention would have associated with generic “processors.” Cf. OIP Techs.,
Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015):
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

19
Beyond the abstract idea of offer-based price optimization, the
claims merely recite “well-understood, routine conventional
activit[ies],” either by requiring conventional computer
activities or routine data-gathering steps. Alice, 134 S. Ct.
at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (alterations in
original). . . . For example, claim 1 recites “sending a first set of
electronic messages over a network to devices,” the devices
being “programmed to communicate,” storing test results in a
“machine-readable medium,” and “using a computerized
system ... to automatically determine” an estimated outcome
and setting a price. Just as in Alice, “all of these computer
functions are ‘well-understood, routine, conventional
activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct.
at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (alterations in
original); see also buySAFE[, Inc. v. Google, Inc.], 765 F.3d
[1350,] 1355 [(Fed. Cir. 2014)] (“That a computer receives and
sends the information over a network—with no further
specification—is not even arguably inventive.”).
Claim 1 describes a method whereby various types of information are
(a) “representing”; (b) “representing”; (c) “establishing”; (d) “recording”;
(e) “calculating”; (f) “iteratively amending … after a predetermined time
period”; (g) “analyzing”; and (h) “providing” via a “processor.” As we have
indicated the “processor” (claim 1) is generic and conventional. The generic
“processor” broadly claimed distinguishes over other generic processors by
the certain types of information that are processed. But, that informational
content difference alone is not patentably consequential. This is so because
“[c]laim limitations directed to the content of information and lacking a
requisite functional relationship are not entitled to patentable weight because
such information is not patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.” Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP Ltd.,
890 F.3d 1024, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

20
The (a) “representing”; (b) “representing”; (c) “establishing”;
(d) “recording”; (e) “calculating”; (f) “iteratively amending … after a
predetermined time period”; (g) “analyzing”; and (h) “providing,” as
claimed, do not ask the “processor” (claim 1) to go beyond its common
functions. Although instructions a processor must follow to invoke the
performance of certain steps can be patentably significant (see Enfish, and
Ancora Techs., 908 F.3d at 1343), here the instant record does not
sufficiently support the view that the recited steps are caused to be
performed by instructions having a non–generic effect on the “processor”
(claim 1). To the contrary, the record supports viewing the recitation of a
“processor” (claim 1) as amounting to a mere instruction to implement the
recited scheme on a generic processor. Cf. Alice 573 U.S. at 225–26
(“Instead, the claims at issue amount to ‘nothing significantly more’ than an
instruction to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement using some
unspecified, generic computer.”)
Rather than being directed to any specific asserted improvement in
technological capabilities, the record supports the view that the claimed
subject matter is directed to using a generic processor to perform the recited
scheme so as to “provid[e] a recommendation with respect to [a] proposed
interaction based upon [an] analyzed effect on [a] global net orientation
score” (claim 1).11

11 See the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55:

The courts have also identified examples in which a judicial exception
has not been integrated into a practical application:
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

21
The claim provides no additional structural details12 that would
distinguish the “processor” (claim 1) from that which was well known as
being generic at the time the application was filed.
Rather, claim 1 describes it functionally, by describing certain
resulting steps; that is, (a) “representing”; (b) “representing”;
(c) “establishing”; (d) “recording”; (e) “calculating”; (f) “iteratively
amending … after a predetermined time period”; (g) “analyzing”; and
(h) “providing” various types of information. But, in that regard, there is
insufficient evidence showing they affect the “processor” (claim 1) in any
structural way.
Accordingly, within the meaning of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance,
we find there is no integration into a practical application.
We have considered all the Appellant’s arguments challenging the
Examiner’s determination under step one of the Alice framework and find
them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the record supports the
Examiner’s determination that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.

 An additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an
equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes
instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or
merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
12 Cf. Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., 721 F. App’x 950, 954 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (nonprecedential). “Claim 1 is aspirational in nature and devoid
of any implementation details or technical description that would permit us
to conclude that the claim as a whole is directed to something other than the
abstract idea identified by the district court.”
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

22
Alice step two – Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?13
Step two is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or
combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
concept] itself.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs.
v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)).
In that regard, the Examiner states:
it is noted that claim 1 calls for “machine-generated network
representation" and "at least one processor.” But any general-purpose
computer available at the time the application was filed would have
satisfied these limitations. The Specification supports that view. See
Spec., e.g., para. 56 (“a process such as that broadly illustrated in FIG.
6 can be carried out on essentially any suitable computer system or set
of computer systems.”) “[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer
cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention. Stating an abstract idea ‘while adding the words “apply it” is
not enough for patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358.
Final Act. 5.
We agree with the Examiner.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that
claim 1 requires something more than a generic computer by providing
recommendations regarding proposed interactions between a supplier
and client based upon identifying the effect of the proposed interaction
on the client-supplier relationship, where the effect is determined using
a machine-generated representation including nodes representing the

13 This corresponds to Step 2B of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 56 (“[I]f a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial
exception under revised Step 2A, examiners should then evaluate the
additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to
determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the
additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception
itself).”).
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

23
supplier and client and an identified relationship between the supplier
and client and based upon a determined effect on a global net
orientation score assigned to a client node that is adjusted based upon
positive and negative interactions between the supplier and client.
Claim 1. Without Applicant’s contribution to the technology, the state
of the art would remain that recited in Applicant’s specification at [001]
- [002] and [0024].
Appeal Br. 33.
We addressed the Appellant’s argument as to purported specific
asserted improvements in technology under step one of the Alice framework.
This is consistent with the case law. See Ancora, 908 F.3d at 1347 (“We
have several times held claims to pass muster under Alice step one when
sufficiently focused on such improvements.”). Such an argument can also
challenge a determination under step two of the Alice framework. See
buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1354–55. “[R]ecent Federal Circuit jurisprudence has
indicated that eligible subject matter can often be identified either at the first
or the second step of the Alice/Mayo [framework].” 2019 Revised 101
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53; see also id. n.17.
Be that as it may, we are unpersuaded that claim 1 presents an element
or combination of elements indicative of a specific asserted improvement in
technological capabilities, thereby rendering the claimed subject matter
sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more
than a patent upon using a generic processor to develop a relationship
representation.
We have reviewed the Specification and, as explained above, we can
find no suggestion of any technical improvements associated with the
performance of the recited steps. The Specification is focused on developing
a relationship representation, not on the “processor” (claim 1). Rather than
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

24
focusing on said “processor”, the Specification focuses on
(a) “representing”; (b) “representing”; (c) “establishing”; (d) “recording”; (e)
“calculating”; (f) “iteratively amending … after a predetermined time
period”; (g) “analyzing”; and (h) “providing” various types of information
that will lead to “a recommendation with respect to the proposed interaction
based upon the analyzed effect on the global net orientation score” (claim 1),
the “processor” (claim 1) acting merely as a conduit for practicing said
scheme. Cf. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607,612 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (“Put differently, the telephone unit itself is merely a conduit for
the abstract idea of classifying an image and storing the image based on its
classification. Indeed, the specification notes that it ‘is known’ that ‘cellular
telephones may be utilized for image transmission,’ [U.S. Patent 6,038,295,]
col. 1 ll. 31–34, and existing telephone systems could transmit pictures,
audio, and motion pictures and also had ‘graphical annotation capability,’”
id. at col. 1 ll. 52–59.”)
We are unpersuaded that the record supports interpreting the steps
recited in the claim as resulting in a technological improvement as the
Appellant has argued. As discussed above, the “processor” (claim 1) was
notoriously well–known, and the recited steps it performs ask nothing more
of it than to use it for its commonly–associated information–processing
functions. Much like the “data storage unit” and “computer, coupled to said
storage unit” in the claims of Alice (U.S. Patent 7,149,720, claim 1), “the
claims here do [not do] more than simply instruct the practitioner to
implement the abstract idea […] on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S.
at 225. See also Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

25
(U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he use of a computer in an
otherwise patent-ineligible process for no more than its most basic
function—making calculations or computations—fails to circumvent the
prohibition against patenting abstract ideas and mental processes.”).
For the reasons discussed above, we are unpersuaded that the record
supports interpreting the steps recited in the claim as yielding any
improvement in technology.
We cited the Specification to show that it discloses that the claimed
“processor” (claim 1) is conventional. In doing so, we have followed
“Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility,
Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP Inc.[, 881
F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)],” USPTO Memorandum, Robert W. Bahr,
Deputy Commissioner For Patent Examination Policy, April 19, 2018 (the
“Berkheimer Memo”)).
The court in Berkheimer held that “[t]he patent eligibility inquiry may
contain underlying issues of fact.” Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1365 (quoting
Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314,
1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The § 101 inquiry ‘may contain underlying factual
issues.”’)). But, the court also held that “[w]hen there is no genuine issue of
material fact regarding whether the claim element or claimed combination is
well-understood, routine, [and] conventional to a skilled artisan in the
relevant field, this issue can be decided on summary judgment as a matter of
law.” Id. at 1368 (emphasis added). This qualification has been subsequently
reiterated.
If there is a genuine dispute of material fact, Rule 56 requires
that summary judgment be denied. In Berkheimer, there was
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

26
such a genuine dispute for claims 4–7, but not for claims 1–3
and 9 . . . . [I]n accordance with Alice, we have repeatedly
recognized the absence of a genuine dispute as to eligibility for
the many claims that have been defended as involving an
inventive concept based merely on the idea of using existing
computers or the Internet to carry out conventional processes,
with no alteration of computer functionality.
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1371–73 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Order, On
Petition for rehearing en banc, May 31, 2018) (Moore, J., concurring); see
also Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 890 F.3d 1354,
1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“A factual allegation or dispute should not
automatically take the determination out of the court’s hands; rather, there
needs to be justification for why additional evidence must be considered—
the default being a legal determination.”). Here, the Specification
indisputably shows the claimed “processor” (claim 1) was conventional at
the time of filing. Accordingly, no genuine issue of material fact exists as to
the well–understood, routine, or conventional nature of the claimed
“processor” (claim 1) as claimed.
No other persuasive arguments having been presented, we conclude
that no error has been committed in the determination under Alice step two
that claim 1 does not include an element or combination of elements
circumscribing the patent-ineligible concept it is directed to so as to
transform the concept into an inventive application.
We have considered all of the Appellant’s remaining arguments and
find them unpersuasive.
Accordingly, because we are not persuaded as to error in the
determinations that representative claim 1 and claims 2–25, which stand or
fall with claim 1, are directed to an abstract idea and do not present an
Appeal 2018–007685
Application 12/824,701

27
“inventive concept,” we sustain the Examiner’s conclusion that they are
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter for being judicially-excepted
from 35 U.S.C. § 101. Cf. LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 F. App’x
991, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We have considered all of LendingTree’s
remaining arguments and have found them unpersuasive. Accordingly,
because the asserted claims of the patents in suit are directed to an abstract
idea and do not present an ‘inventive concept,’ we hold that they are directed
to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”); see, e.g., OIP Techs.,
788 F.3d at 1364; FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089,
1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–25 is affirmed.
More specifically:
The rejection of claims 1–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to judicially-excepted subject matter is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–25 101 Eligibility 1–25

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED