Robert Woolsey et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 1, 2019

14171571 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 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.
14/171,571 02/03/2014 Robert Woolsey 072031.112US1 2220
34018 7590 11/01/2019
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive
Suite 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
EXAMINER
ZARE, SCOTT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2019 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):
chiipmail@gtlaw.com
clairt@gtlaw.com
jarosikg@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT WOOLSEY and NIRJHAR RAINA
____________

Appeal 2018-001433
Application 14/171,571
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–3, 5–15, 17, and 19–23, which are all the claims
pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the Home Depot Product Authority, LLC, as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-001433
Application 14/171,571

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to “optimization of product inventory
levels and, more particularly, but not by way of limitation, to methods,
devices, and systems for identifying one or more products for which sales
were disproportionately dispersed and optimizing the inventory levels of
such products.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 13 are exemplary:

1. A computerized method of determining an inventory
quantity value for a product, the method comprising:
calculating a dispersion inequality value of sales for one
or more products, wherein each of the one or more products is
associated with one dispersion inequality value;
identifying, according to the calculated dispersion
inequality value of sales for one or more products, a product
from the one or more products for which sales for the identified
product were disproportionately dispersed over a time period
comprising a plurality of time units;
determining a first quantity value and a first frequency
for the identified product based, at least in part, on sales values
of the identified product within a subset of time units of the
time period; and
determining an inventory quantity value for the identified
product based, at least in part, on the determined first quantity
value and the determined first frequency for the product;
wherein calculating the dispersion inequality value for at
least one product of the one or more products comprises:
ordering the plurality of time units in ascending order
according to sales values, wherein the first time unit is
associated with a smallest sales value for the at least one
product and the last time unit is associated with a largest sales
value for the at least one product; and
Appeal 2018-001433
Application 14/171,571

3
calculating the dispersion inequality value based, at least
in part, on the ordered plurality of time units.

13. A system comprising:
a memory; and
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured
to:
calculate a dispersion inequality value of sales for one or
more products, wherein each of the one or more products is
associated with one dispersion inequality value;
identify, according to the calculated dispersion inequality
value of sales for one or more products, a product from the one
or more products for which sales for the identified product were
disproportionately dispersed over a time period comprising a
plurality of time units;
determine a first quantity value and a first frequency for
the identified product based, at least in part, on sales values of
the identified product within a subset of time units of the time
period;
determine an inventory quantity value for the identified
product based, at least in part, on the determined first quantity
value and the determined first frequency for the product;
determine a second frequency for the product, wherein
the second frequency is a frequency associated with a portion of
the time period;
multiply the first frequency by a seasonal factor
associated with the portion of the time period to obtain an
adjusted first frequency;
determine a probability of having, within the portion of
the time period, zero, one, or more time units with
disproportionate sales values based, at least in part, on the
adjusted first frequency, wherein each number of time units is
associated with one probability;
determine a scaling factor based, at least in part, on the
determined probabilities and a percentage of sales for the
product to support; and
Appeal 2018-001433
Application 14/171,571

4
multiply the first quantity value by the determined
scaling factor to obtain the inventory quantity value for the
product for the portion of the time period.

App. Br. 16, 19–20 (Claims Appendix).

Rejection2

Claims 1–3, 5–15, 17, and 19–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
because they are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2–5.

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101

We disagree with Appellant’s arguments. To the extent consistent
with our analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer.3
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides “[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, subject to the conditions and requirements of this
title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted
35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated
January 10, 2017 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated June 9, 2017 (“App.
Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated September 28, 2017 (“Ans.”); and (4)
Reply Brief dated November 27, 2017 (“Reply Br.”).
3 To the extent Appellant advances new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellant has waived such arguments. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).

Appeal 2018-001433
Application 14/171,571

5
phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and, thus, patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
Appeal 2018-001433
Application 14/171,571

6
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a
patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation omitted). “A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO, 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the
Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
Appeal 2018-001433
Application 14/171,571

7
(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) (Step 2A, Prong 1); 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, 2018) (Step 2A, Prong 2).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look 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. (Step 2B.)
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–56.
Turning to Step 2A, Prong 1 of the Guidance, claims 1 and 13 (with
emphases added) recite:
1. A computerized method of determining an inventory quantity value
for a product, the method comprising:
calculating a dispersion inequality value of sales for one or more
products, wherein each of the one or more products is associated with one
dispersion inequality value;
identifying, according to the calculated dispersion inequality value of
sales for one or more products, a product from the one or more products for
which sales for the identified product were disproportionately dispersed
over a time period comprising a plurality of time units;
determining a first quantity value and a first frequency for the
identified product based, at least in part, on sales values of the identified
product within a subset of time units of the time period; and
determining an inventory quantity value for the identified product
based, at least in part, on the determined first quantity value and the
determined first frequency for the product;
Appeal 2018-001433
Application 14/171,571

8
wherein calculating the dispersion inequality value for at least one
product of the one or more products comprises:
ordering the plurality of time units in ascending order
according to sales values, wherein the first time unit is associated
with a smallest sales value for the at least one product and the last
time unit is associated with a largest sales value for the at least one
product; and
calculating the dispersion inequality value based, at least in
part, on the ordered plurality of time units.

13. A system comprising:
a memory; and
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to:
calculate a dispersion inequality value of sales for one or more
products, wherein each of the one or more products is associated with one
dispersion inequality value;
identify, according to the calculated dispersion inequality value of
sales for one or more products, a product from the one or more products for
which sales for the identified product were disproportionately dispersed
over a time period comprising a plurality of time units;
determine a first quantity value and a first frequency for the identified
product based, at least in part, on sales values of the identified product
within a subset of time units of the time period;
determine an inventory quantity value for the identified product
based, at least in part, on the determined first quantity value and the
determined first frequency for the product;
determine a second frequency for the product, wherein the second
frequency is a frequency associated with a portion of the time period;
multiply the first frequency by a seasonal factor associated with the
portion of the time period to obtain an adjusted first frequency;
determine a probability of having, within the portion of the time
period, zero, one, or more time units with disproportionate sales values
based, at least in part, on the adjusted first frequency, wherein each number
of time units is associated with one probability;
determine a scaling factor based, at least in part, on the determined
probabilities and a percentage of sales for the product to support; and
multiply the first quantity value by the determined scaling factor to
obtain the inventory quantity value for the product for the portion of the time
period.
Appeal 2018-001433
Application 14/171,571

9

The foregoing italicized processes and functions are like the mental
processes in CyberSource and Synopsys, because they can be performed by a
human using a pen and paper. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“All of claim 3’s method
steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and
paper. . . . Such a method that can be performed by human thought alone is
merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under § 101.”); Synopsys,
Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e
continue to ‘treat[ ] analyzing information by steps people go through in
their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially
mental processes within the abstract-idea category.’”) (citation omitted).
For example, claim 1 recites “calculating a dispersion inequality value
of sales for one or more products.” According to the exemplary
embodiments of the Specification, that limitation calculates a value from
product sales information, and the value indicates an unequal dispersion of
product sales over a specific time period, which may be a Gini coefficient, or
other known metrics. See Spec. ¶¶ 52–53; Fig. 4. Further, the Gini
coefficient “may be used to quantify the disproportionality of the sales
history” and calculating the Gini coefficient involves data analysis that a
person can perform mentally or by using a pen and paper. Spec. ¶54.
Therefore, “calculating a dispersion inequality value of sales for one or more
products” involves data analysis that could be performed mentally or using a
pen and paper. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 52–57; Figs. 4, 5a–5b, 6a–6b.
For similar reasons, the limitations “identifying, according to the
calculated dispersion inequality value of sales for one or more products, a
Appeal 2018-001433
Application 14/171,571

10
product from the one or more products for which sales for the identified
product were disproportionately dispersed over a time period comprising a
plurality of time units,” “determining a first quantity value and a first
frequency for the identified product based, at least in part, on sales values of
the identified product within a subset of time units of the time period,”
“determining an inventory quantity value for the identified product based, at
least in part, on the determined first quantity value and the determined first
frequency for the product,” “ordering the plurality of time units in ascending
order according to sales values, wherein the first time unit is associated with
a smallest sales value for the at least one product and the last time unit is
associated with a largest sales value for the at least one product,” and
“calculating the dispersion inequality value based, at least in part, on the
ordered plurality of time units” involve data analysis that could be
performed mentally or using a pen and paper. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 54, 58–66
(describing embodiments of the limitations as data analysis); Figs. 4, 6a, 8a–
8b, 9a–9b.
Independent claim 13 recites similar limitations. See Claim 13. For
the reasons discussed above, such similar limitations involve data analysis
that could be performed mentally or using a pen and paper. Further, the
remaining limitations of claim 13 (“determine a second frequency for the
product, wherein the second frequency is a frequency associated with a
portion of the time period; “multiply the first frequency by a seasonal factor
associated with the portion of the time period to obtain an adjusted first
frequency” “determine a probability of having, within the portion of the time
period, zero, one, or more time units with disproportionate sales values
based, at least in part, on the adjusted first frequency, wherein each number
Appeal 2018-001433
Application 14/171,571

11
of time units is associated with one probability” “determine a scaling factor
based, at least in part, on the determined probabilities and a percentage of
sales for the product to support; “multiply the first quantity value by the
determined scaling factor to obtain the inventory quantity value for the
product for the portion of the time period”) involve data analysis that could
be performed mentally or using a pen and paper. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 60–64,
68–71 (describing embodiments of the limitations as data analysis); Figs. 4,
8a–8b, 9a–9b, 10.
As a result, we conclude each of independent claims 1 and 13 recites
mental processes, and thus an abstract idea. See Guidance, Step 2A, Prong 1
(Groupings of Abstract Ideas); Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 53 (listing
“[m]ental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” as one of the “enumerated
groupings of abstract ideas” (footnotes omitted)); Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
52 n.14 (“If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer
components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim
cannot practically be performed in the mind.”).
Independent claim 17 recites processes similar to those of claim 1.
See Claim 17. Therefore, for similar reasons, we conclude independent
claim 17 recites mental processes, and thus an abstract idea. See Guidance,
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Groupings of Abstract Ideas); Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
52, 53; Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14.
Turning to Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Guidance, contrary to Appellant’s
arguments (App. Br. 8–14; Reply Br. 2–5), the rejected independent claims
do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
Appeal 2018-001433
Application 14/171,571

12
practical application. In particular, Appellant’s arguments that the claims
recite “a particular way of determining the inventory quantity value” (Reply
Br. 4) and specific limitations “confine the claims to particular useful
applications” (App. Br. 11 (emphasis omitted); see also App. Br. 9) are
unpersuasive because “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract
idea.” Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151. “[U]nder the Mayo/Alice framework, a
claim directed to a newly discovered law of nature (or natural phenomenon
or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the
inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility . . . .” Genetic Techs. Ltd.
v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).
Appellant’s assertion regarding pre-emption (Reply Br. 5–6) is
unpersuasive, because “[w]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible
subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate
patent eligibility . . . . Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose
patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in
this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Ariosa
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
see also OIP, 788 F.3d at 1362–63 (“that the claims do not preempt all price
optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce
setting do not make them any less abstract”).
Appellant also argues “the claimed steps provide a unique way of
automating a previously manual task” Reply Br. 3. However, our reviewing
court has declared:
While the claimed system and method certainly purport to
accelerate the process of analyzing audit log data, the speed
increase comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose
computer, rather than the patented method itself. See Bancorp
Appeal 2018-001433
Application 14/171,571

13
Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687
F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required
calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer
does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed
subject matter.”).
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (emphases added).
Applying this reasoning to the rejected independent claims, we
similarly find any purported efficiencies associated with “automati[on]”
comes from the capabilities of general-purpose computers (the recited
“memory,” “processor,” and “computer–readable medium”), rather than the
claimed functions. Similar to the claims of FairWarning, the independent
claims are “not directed to an improvement in the way computers operate”
and “the focus of the claims is not on . . . an improvement in computers as
tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as
tools.” FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095.
In addition, Appellant cites BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v.
AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (App. Br. 13), but does
not persuasively explain why that case is similar to the present case. In
BASCOM, the court determined that at the pleading stage and construed in
favor of the nonmovant,
The inventive concept described and claimed . . . is the
installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from
the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to
each end user. This design gives the filtering tool both the
benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a
filter on the ISP server. BASCOM explains that the inventive
concept rests on taking advantage of the ability of at least some
ISPs to identify individual accounts that communicate with the
ISP server, and to associate a request for Internet content with a
specific individual account.
Appeal 2018-001433
Application 14/171,571

14
BASCOM Global Internet Services, 827 F.3d at 1350 (emphasis
added).
Unlike the claims of BASCOM, the rejected independent claims are
not directed to an “installation of a filtering tool at a specific location,
remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to
each end user” or similar improvements. Id. at 1350. Nor do they “give[]
the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the
benefits of a filter on the ISP server” or provide similar benefits. Id. To the
contrary and as discussed above, the rejected independent claims are
directed to a new abstract idea.
Further, Appellant’s reliance on McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Reply Br. 3) is unpersuasive.
In McRO, the Court determines:
Claim 1 of the ’576 patent is focused on a specific asserted
improvement in computer animation, i.e., the automatic use of
rules of a particular type. . . . It is the incorporation of the
claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the]
existing technological process” by allowing the automation of
further tasks.
Further, the automation goes beyond merely “organizing
[existing] information into a new form” or carrying out a
fundamental economic practice. . . . The claimed process uses
a combined order of specific rules that renders information into
a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired
results: a sequence of synchronized, animated characters.
McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314–15 (emphases added).
Unlike the claims of McRO, the rejected independent claims are not
directed to “a specific asserted improvement in computer animation” or
similar improvements. Id. at 1314. Nor are they directed to using “a
Appeal 2018-001433
Application 14/171,571

15
combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific
format that is then used and applied to create desired results: a sequence of
synchronized, animated characters” or similar functions. Id. at 1315.
As a result, we conclude independent claims 1, 13, and 17 do not
recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. See Guidance, Step 2A, Prong 2.
Turning to Step 2B of the Guidance, Appellant does not persuasively
argue any specific limitation is not well-understood, routine, or conventional
in the field. Nor does Appellant persuasively argue the Examiner erred in
that aspect. In particular, Appellant’s argument that the limitations of the
independent claims are “other than what is well-understood, routine, and
conventional in the field” due to the absence of prior art rejections (App. Br.
10) is unpersuasive. Prior art rejections are determined under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 and § 103, which are different statutory requirements. As the
Supreme Court emphasizes: “[t]he ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a
process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining
whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of
possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188–
89 (1981) (emphasis added). Our reviewing court further guides that
“[e]ligibility and novelty are separate inquiries.” Two-Way Media Ltd. v.
Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
As a result, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred with
respect to the Guidance’s Step 2B analysis. See Guidance, Step 2B.
Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 101. For similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
Appeal 2018-001433
Application 14/171,571

16
dependent claims 2, 3, 5–12, 14, 15, and 19–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as
Appellant does not provide separate substantive arguments about those
claims.

Regarding dependent claims 21–23, turning to Step 2A, Prong 1,
Appellant argues in light of the limitations recited in claim 21, dependent
claims 21–23 “cannot be performed . . . with a pen and paper.” App. Br. 14.
Claim 21 recites:
21. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by a server, a transmission from a user that includes one or both
of:
a threshold that specifies a minimum dispersion inequality value that
indicates a product had sales that were disproportionately dispersed over a
time period; or
a desired percentage of sales for a product to support;
wherein one or both of:
identifying a product from the one or more products for which sales
for the identified product were disproportionately dispersed over a time
period comprises comparing calculated dispersion inequality values of sales
for the one or more products to the threshold; or
determining an inventory quantity value for the identified product is
further based on the desired percentage of sales for the product to support.

Similar to the discussions above regarding independent claims,
because the italicized processes of claim 21 involve data analysis that can be
performed by a human using a pen and paper, they are like the mental
processes in CyberSource and Synopsys. See CyberSource Corp., 654 F.3d
at 1372–73; Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1146. As a result, we conclude dependent
claim 21 (and similarly, each of dependent claims 22 and 23) recites mental
processes, and thus an abstract idea. See Guidance, Step 2A, Prong 1
(Groupings of Abstract Ideas).
Appeal 2018-001433
Application 14/171,571

17
Turning to Step 2A, Prong 2, Appellant has not shown the claims 21–
23 recite additional elements that integrate the mental processes into a
practical application. In particular, Appellant’s assertion that the “recitations
[of claim 21] provide a technological connection between a user and the
steps of the independent claims” (App. Br. 14) is unpersuasive, as Appellant
has not explained why adding “a server” to receive information renders the
claim patent eligible. Turning to Step 2B, Appellant does not persuasively
argue any specific limitation is not well-understood, routine, or conventional
in the field. Nor does Appellant persuasively argue the Examiner erred in
that aspect.
Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above, Appellant has not
persuaded us the Examiner erred. As a result, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claims 21–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 5–15, 17,
and 19–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–15, 17,
19–23
101 Eligibility 1–3, 5–
15, 17,
19–23

Appeal 2018-001433
Application 14/171,571

18
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED