SAP SE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 13, 2020

14866562 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/866,562 09/25/2015 Vidur Shailendra Bhatnagar 8880-94712-01 1984
106592 7590 07/13/2020
Klarquist Sparkman, LLP (SAP)
121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600
Portland, OR 97204
EXAMINER
YU, ARIEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@klarquist.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte VIDUR SHAILENDRA BHATNAGAR,
NACHIKET VINAYA, AMIT KUMAR SINGH,
SHAILESH BORKAR, SHIVENDRA SONI, ANKUSH MEHTA,
VIDYA GUGNANI, and GAURAV JAIN

Appeal 2020-001849
Application 14/866,562
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and
RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as reciting
patent ineligible subject matter. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1
appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SAP SE.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001849
Application 14/866,562

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1–15 and 17–21 stand rejected by the Examiner under 35
U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea
which is non-statutory subject matter. Non-Final Act. 3.
There are three independent claims on appeal, claims 1, 19, and 20.
We select claim 1 as representative. Claim 1 is reproduced below. The claim
is annotated with bracketed numbers and letters for reference to the
limitations in it.
1. One or more computer-readable storage media storing
computer-executable instructions for:
[1] receiving through a user interface user input selecting
a data set for which a data visualization is to be generated;
[2] causing a query to be executed to retrieve at least a first
portion of the selected data set;
[3] in response to the query, receiving the at least a first
portion of the selected data set, at least some of the data in the at
least a portion of the selected data set representing a plurality of
measures;
[4] selecting at least a second portion of the selected data
set, the at least second portion of the selected data set comprising
a first intrinsic measure of the selected data set, wherein an
intrinsic measure is a measure that is an inherent feature of the at
least a second portion of the selected data set;
[5] calculating at least a first derived measure from the at
least first portion of the selected data set, wherein the at least a
first derived measure is calculated from one or more inherent
measures of the selected data set; and
[6] dynamically generating a data visualization:
[7] the data visualization comprising a concurrent
display of:
[8] at least a first enhanced graphical element,
the at least a first enhanced graphical element concurrently
conveying first information regarding a first derived measure, a
first intrinsic measure, and a second derived measure or a second
intrinsic measure among the plurality of measures;
Appeal 2020-001849
Application 14/866,562

3
[9] at least a first graphical element, which
can be at least a second enhanced graphical element; and
[10] at least a first axis; and
[11] the dynamically generating comprising
positioning the at least a first axis at a first position on the
generated visualization and at least one of:
(1)
[a] positioning at least a second axis at a
second position on the generated visualization, wherein
positioning the at least a first axis at the first position and the at
least a second axis at the second position aligns the at least a first
axis and the at least a second axis;
[b] placing the at least a first enhanced
graphical element at a third position, the third position being
defined along the at least a first axis;
[c] placing the at least a first graphical
element at a fourth position, the fourth position being defined
along the at least a second axis but not along the at least a first
axis;
wherein the positions of the at least a first
enhanced graphical element and the at least a first graphical
element convey second information to the user; and
(2)
[d] sizing the at least a first enhanced
graphical element relative to the first graphical element to
convey third information to the user; and
[e] positioning the at least a first enhanced
graphical element relative to the first graphical element to
convey fourth information to the user.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a
“new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”
However, not every discovery is eligible for patent protection. Diamond v.
Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981). “Excluded from such patent protection are
Appeal 2020-001849
Application 14/866,562

4
laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Id. The Supreme
Court articulated a two-step analysis to determine whether a claim falls
within an excluded category of invention. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566
U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012).
In the first step, it is determined “whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If
it is determined that the claims are directed to an ineligible concept, then the
second step of the two-part analysis is applied in which it is asked “[w]hat
else is there in the claims before us?” Id. (alteration in original). The Court
explained that this step involves
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 217–18 (alteration in original) (citing from Mayo, 566
U.S. at 75–77).
Alice, relying on the analysis in Mayo of a claim directed to a law of
nature, stated that in the second part of the analysis, “the elements of each
claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” must be
considered “to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the
nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at
217.
The PTO 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 (Jan. 7, 2019)
Appeal 2020-001849
Application 14/866,562

5
(“Eligibility Guidance”). This guidance provides additional direction on how
to implement the two-part analysis of Mayo and Alice.
Step 2A, Prong One, of the Eligibility Guidance, looks at the specific
limitations in the claim to determine whether the claim recites a judicial
exception to patent eligibility. In Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims are
examined to identify whether there are additional elements in the claims that
integrate the exception in a practical application, namely, is there a
“meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than
a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” 84 Fed.
Reg. 54 (Prong Two).
If the claim recites a judicial exception that is not integrated into a
practical application, then as in the Mayo/Alice framework, Step 2B of the
Eligibility Guidance instructs us to determine whether there is a claimed
“inventive concept” to ensure that the claims define an invention that is
significantly more than the ineligible concept itself. 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
With these guiding principles in mind, we proceed to determine
whether the claimed subject matter in this appeal is eligible for patent
protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

DISCUSSION
Claim 1 is directed to a “computer-readable storage media storing
computer-executable instructions.” Following the first step of the
Mayo/Alice analysis, we find that the claim is directed to a “manufacture”
and therefore falls into one of the broad statutory categories of patent-
eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We thus proceed to Step 2A,
Prong One, of the Eligibility Guidance.
Appeal 2020-001849
Application 14/866,562

6
Step 2A, Prong One
In Step 2A, Prong One, of the Eligibility Guidance, the specific
limitations in the claim are examined to determine whether the claim recites
a judicial exception to patent eligibility, namely, whether the claim recites an
abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
The Examiner found that the claim limitations of “(1) positioning,
placing; and (2) sizing; and positioning steps as drafted, are processes that
under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation
in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.” Non-
Final Act. 5 (in reference to the limitations recited in step [11] of claim 1).
For this reason, the Examiner determined that the claim recites “mental
processes,” one of the categories of abstract ideas listed in the Eligibility
Guidance and found by the courts to represent an abstract idea. Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. We agree with the Examiner’s determination and
address the specific limitations of the claim below.
In step [1] of claim 1, a data set is received as input for a “data
visualization” which is to be generated. Therefore, while the claim preamble
does not state a purpose of the recited “computer-executable instructions,”
we understand the instructions to be for generating a visualization of data
(“data visualization”).
Step [2] of the claim recites “causing a query to be executed to
retrieve at least a first portion of the selected data set.” We understand this to
mean that a “first portion” of the data set is retrieved. In response to the
“query,” a first portion of the data set is received (step [3]). This first portion
represents a “plurality of measures.”
Appeal 2020-001849
Application 14/866,562

7
Step [4] of the claim selects a second portion of the data set. The
second portion of the data comprises “an intrinsic measure” which is “a
measure that is an inherent feature” of the second portion. The Specification
discloses an example of an “intrinsic measure” as “data representing product
sales, the price of the product is an intrinsic measure.” Spec. ¶ 34. After
completing steps [2]–[4] of the claim, there are first and second portions of
the data set, where the first portion represents measures and the second
portion comprises intrinsic measures.
We do not consider the receiving data and query steps [1]–[3] to be
abstract ideas. Step [4] recites “selecting” data; we understand this to mean
that the data is identified from the set on the computer, such as moving a
mouse over it to identify which data to manipulate in the further steps of the
claim. Thus, we also do not consider step [4] to represent an abstract idea.
Step [5] calculates a “first derived measure” for at least the first
portion of the data. The recited step of “calculating” is a “mathematical
calculation” and therefore falls into the first category of abstract ideas listed
in the Eligibility Guidance as “[m]athematical concepts.” Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52 (n.12 citing supporting case law).
The remaining steps in the claim, after the data has been received and
selected, and the calculations made, comprise “dynamically generating a
data visualization” (step [6]). The data visualizing is described as a
“concurrent display” of “at least a first enhanced graphical element” ([8]),
“at least a first graphical element” ([9]), and “at least a first axis” ([10]).
These limitations therefore describe three elements which are on the
concurrent display.
Appeal 2020-001849
Application 14/866,562

8
The “dynamically generating” is stated in step [11] to comprise
“positioning the at least a first axis at a first position on the generated
visualization and at least one of” (1) and (2). Step (1) comprises [a]–[c]
which recite steps of positioning a second axis, placing a first enhanced
graphical element, and placing a first graphical element, respectively. Step
(2), alternatively, comprises [d] and [e] which recite sizing the at least a first
enhanced graphical element and positioning the at least a first enhanced
graphical element. All the recited limitations in step [11], as found by the
Examiner, can be performed by the human mind, using pen and paper, to
graph the elements. We therefore conclude that step 11 is a “mental
process,” one of the categories of abstract ideas listed in the Eligibility
Guidance in accordance with prevailing case law. Eligibility Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. 52 (nn.14, 15 citing supporting case law). “The use of a physical
aid (i.e., the pen and paper) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a
mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of this
limitation.” PEG Update 9.2 (“Courts have examined claims that required the
use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible
invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.”
Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306,
1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Appellant disputes that the claims recite a judicial exception, but
provides no arguments to the contrary, and proceeds to the question under
Step 2A, Prong Two, of whether “any” judicial exception is integrated into a
practical application. Appeal Br. 7–8. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we

2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
peg_oct_2019_update.pdf (last accessed Jul. 6, 2020) (“PEG Update”).
Appeal 2020-001849
Application 14/866,562

9
find that claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Accordingly, we proceed to Step
2A, Prong Two, of the Eligibility Guidance.

Step 2A, Prong Two
Prong Two of Step 2A under the 2019 Eligibility Guidance asks
whether there are additional elements that integrate the exception into a
practical application. We must look at the claim elements individually and
“as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements
integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. “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.” Eligibility Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. 54. Integration into a practical application is evaluated by
identifying whether there are additional elements individually, and in
combination, which go beyond the judicial exception. Id. at 54–55.
Appellant states that the claims integrate “any judicial exception”
recited in the claims into a practical application. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant
argues that the additional elements recited in the claim provide an
improvement that integrates the exception, if any, into practical application.
Id. at. 13.
Appellant argues that the improvement comprises “[t]he claimed
enhanced graphical elements, and their interrelation with other display
features (e.g., graphical elements or one or more axes) [which] allow for
large amounts of information to be concurrently presented to a user while
still being intelligible.” Appeal Br. 15. Appellant also argues that rather than
Appeal 2020-001849
Application 14/866,562

10
rely on “filtering” as in prior techniques, the “claimed techniques can
improve computer performance by not requiring additional filtering steps.”
Id.
Appellant also states claims 1 and 20 include “features related to
including at least one enhanced graphical element on a display that has
multiple axes.” Appeal Br. 15. Appellant did not identify what feature in the
claims is being addressed, but we note that limitations [8] and [11][b], [d],
and [e] in claim 1 comprise an “enhanced graphical element.” Appellant also
directs attention to the Specification which discloses that “[i]mplementations
of visualization 300 having multiple axes that are separate but in alignment
can at least partially provide an enhanced graphic element or enhanced
visualization of multiple dimensions, multiple measures, or a combination of
dimensions and measures.” Spec. ¶ 62. Appellant describes this as an
improvement to “display” which “facilitate[s] presenting multiple types of
information in a single display in a particular, easy to understand format.”
Appeal Br. 15.
Appellant states that claims 1 and 19 include “features relating to how
an enhanced graphical element and another graphical element are placed
relative to each other, and sized relative to each other, to concurrently
display multiple types of information in a way that was not possible with
prior user interface displays.” Appeal Br. 15. Again, Appellant makes an
assertion about the claims, without identifying the limitation that comprises
the alleged improvement. In this case, we understand the argument to relate
to limitations [b] and [c] of (1) and [d] and [e] of (2) of step [11] of
dynamically generating a data visualization.
Appellant directs attention to the Specification which discloses:
Appeal 2020-001849
Application 14/866,562

11
Previously if a user desired to visualize the above data, the user
would need to either resort to having multiple charts on a single
dashboard (a combination of line charts, bar charts, etc.) or fit the
data on a single chart with multiple-axis or a single chart with
multiple-bars or multiple-lines. However, these visualization
styles would still fail to explicitly draw attention to insights
created through the relative placement of the measures enabled
by the visualization 500.
Spec. 91.
Appellant cites to the examples set forth in the “Subject Matter
Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas”3 (“Eligibility Examples” or “SMEE”)
which accompanied the Eligibility Guidance as support for the eligibility of
the rejected claims. Appeal Br. 7–8, 9–11. Appellant also asserts that the
“improvement” is patent-eligible for the same reason as in “Trading
Technologies”4 and Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics,
Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Appeal Br. 15.
We first address the pertinence of the Eligibility Examples to the
claims. Appellant asserts that rejected claim 1 is eligible for the same
reasons as claim 1 of Example 37 of the Eligibility Examples. In Example
37, claim 1 recites “receiving, via the GUI, a user selection to organize each
icon based on a specific criteria, wherein the specific criteria is an amount of
use of each icon,” determining by a processor the amount of use of each
icon, and then “automatically moving the most used icons to a position on
the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the
determined amount of use.” SMEE 2. The claim was found eligible because
the additional elements of receiving and using a processor “recite a specific

3 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
101_examples_37to42_20190107.pdf (last accessed Jul. 6, 2020).
4 See infra. at 14–15 for full citation.
Appeal 2020-001849
Application 14/866,562

12
manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which
provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an
improved user interface for electronic devices.” Id. at 2–3.
Appellant argues that claim 1 of the present application is similar to
claim 1 in Example 37 because it “includes receiving user input and
automatically placing display elements (e.g., graphical element, enhanced
graphical element, first axis, second axis) at specific locations, in specific
ways to achieve a specific, practical, advantageous result.” Appeal Br. 11.
We do not agree. Claim 1 of Example 37 “placed” the icons based on a
specific rule: “the amount of use of each icon.” SMEE 2. Here, there is no
specific rule recited in the claim which governs the placing of graphical
elements (steps [b], [c], and [e]) and sizing of the graphical element (step
[d]) as recited in step [11].
Appellant also states that Example 40 of the Eligibility Examples
provides support for the eligibility of claim 1. Appeal Br. 11. Claim 1 of
Example 40 comprises collecting network traffic data, comparing the data to
a predefined threshold, and “collecting additional traffic data relating to the
network traffic when the collected traffic data is greater than the predefined
threshold.” SMEE 10. Although the comparing step was found to be an
abstract idea, the claim was found eligible because “the method limits
collection of additional . . . data to when the initially collected data reflects
an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network
and hindrance of network performance.” Id. at 11. Thus, the claim did not
just collect data, but determined when to collect it based on a predefined
threshold. Here, there is no threshold or rule that determines where to place
Appeal 2020-001849
Application 14/866,562

13
or size the graphical elements. Claim 40 of the Eligibility Examples
therefore is distinguishable from rejected claim 1.
The graphical elements are placed and sized on the axis according to
the “measures” recited in limitation [8] of claim 1. However, placing an
element on the axes of a visual representation is not an improvement to a
technical field or technology because it is the conventional way that values
are depicted graphically. We do not think it is necessary to provide evidence
that placing elements on a graph using their value, a technique which every
middle-schooler is taught, was well-known and conventional at the time of
the invention.
Core Wireless is cited by Appellant in their eligibility argument.
Appeal Br. 14, 15.
The representative claim in Core Wireless is directed to a computing
device comprising a display screen. The device in the claim is “configured to
display on the screen a menu listing one or more applications” and “to
display on the screen an application summary that can be reached directly
from the menu.” Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1359 (emphasis omitted). The
claim recites that “the application summary displays a limited list of data
offered within the one or more applications” and that “the application
summary is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-
launched state.” Id. (emphasis omitted).
The court found that the claim is “directed to an improved user
interface for computing devices, not to the abstract idea of an index.” Core
Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1362. The court stated there is a specific way recited in
the claims to access the summary and that the claim limitations “restrain[]
the type of data that can be displayed in the summary window” and specify
Appeal 2020-001849
Application 14/866,562

14
“a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed,”
which the court concluded provided “a specific manner of displaying a
limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user
interface methods to display a generic index on a computer.” Id. at 1362–63.
Other than to reproduce the claim in Core Wireless, Appellant does
not describe the relevance of the claim in Core Wireless to rejected claim 1.
Appeal Br. 14. As explained above, the user interface was found eligible in
Core Wireless because the claim restricted the data display and provided a
way to access the application summary. In other words, the user interface
had a functionality other than just displaying the data that was made
available to it. In appealed claim 1, the only limitation pointed to by
Appellant in step [11] is the display of the graphical elements on axes. The
claim does not restrict the data for the graphical elements or provide a way
to access them, limitations that Core Wireless based its decision on in
finding the claims patent-eligible. The graphical elements recited in claim 1
are not an interface to access a menu nor do they possess a functionality as
in Core Wireless. Thus, we do not see how Core Wireless provides support
for the eligibility of claim 1.
Appellant also cited to “Trading Technologies.” Appeal Br. 14. There
are two “Trading Technologies” cases. Appellant did not provide a citation
to indicate which case they consider relevant, but, matching the quotes cited
in the case by Appellant, we determined that Appellant is referring to
Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App’x 1001
(Fed. Cir. 2017). In Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F.
App’x 1001, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the
disputed claims are patent-eligible because they “require a specific,
Appeal 2020-001849
Application 14/866,562

15
structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed functionality
directly related to the graphical user interface’s structure that is addressed to
and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art.”
Id. at 1004. The claims in this appeal are distinguishable because there is no
functionality associated with the display of the data in rejected claim 1 at
issue in this appeal. The claim in Trading Technologies v. CQG recited:
in response to a selection of a particular location of the order
entry region by a single action of a user input device, setting a
plurality of parameters for a trade order relating to the
commodity and sending the trade order to the electronic
exchange.
Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App’x at 1003.
Rejected claim 1 contains no such requirement for a user input to
cause an action within the graphical user interface as in the claims in
Trading Technologies v. CQG.
Claim 1 in this appeal is more like the claim in the other Trading
Technologies case, Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. IBG LLC,
921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019). In that case, in the appealed PTAB decision,
the Board found that the claim is “directed to ‘the abstract idea of graphing
(or displaying) bids and offers to assist a trader to make an order.’” Trading
Technologies Int’l Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d at 1092. The court further
explained:
The method steps require “displaying” a plurality of bid and offer
indicators along a “scaled axis of prices,” “receiving market
information,” displaying that information along the axis, and
“displaying” information pertaining to a user’s order.
Id.
The court acknowledged that the claim “also recites sending an order
by ‘selecting’ and ‘moving’ an order icon to a location along the price axis,”
Appeal 2020-001849
Application 14/866,562

16
and found that it did not change the court’s determination that the claims are
directed to an abstract idea. Id. (the limitation read “selecting the order icon
and moving the order icon with a pointer of a user input device to a location
associated with a price along the first scaled axis of prices”). Thus, placing
and sizing the graphical elements according to specific values is insufficient
to confer patent-eligibility to an abstract idea.
The only elements of the claim that Appellant has identified as the
improvement is in step [11] of dynamically generating data visualization, a
step that we have found to be a mental process and therefore an abstract
idea. Appellant’s position is that placing enhanced graphical element on
multiple axes and also relative to another graphical element is an
improvement that confers eligibility to the claims. However, these steps are
not stated with sufficient specificity to confer patent-eligibility on the claim.
The reasoning is explained in detail in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In McRO, the claim was directed to a “method for automatically
animating lip synchronization and facial expression of three-dimensional
characters.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1307–08. The claim recited a series of steps
that “produce[d] lip synchronization and facial expression control of said
animated characters.” Id. The court found that 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 1315. McRO
explained that the recited rules “are limiting in that they define morph
weight sets as a function of the timing of phoneme sub-sequences.” McRO,
837 F.3d at 1313.
Appeal 2020-001849
Application 14/866,562

17
McRO, in explaining the policy reasons underling the judicial
exception to patent-eligibility, stated that the “limitations in claim 1 prevent
preemption of all processes for achieving automated lip-synchronization of
3–D characters.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315. The court held that “[t]he
specific structure of the claimed rules would prevent broad preemption of all
rules-based means of automating lip synchronization.” Id. McRO noted that
the “abstract idea exception has been applied to prevent patenting of claims
that abstractly cover results where ‘it matters not by what process or
machinery the result is accomplished.’ [O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113
(1854)]; see also [Mayo, 566 U.S. at 84–86].” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314.
McRO stated that, therefore, a court must “look to whether the claims in
these patents 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 merely invoke generic processes and machinery.” McRO,
837 F.3d at 1314.
Rejected claim 1 has none of the hallmarks of the McRO claims that
conferred patent-eligibility on them. Specifically, the rejected claim in this
appeal does not recite how the “positioning,” “placing,” and “sizing” recited
in elements [a]–[e] are accomplished. In McRO the court found “a combined
order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is
then used and applied to create desired results.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315.
Here, the claims do not recite specific rules to position and place the
graphical elements on the axes. They appear to be simply placed and sized
according to their associated measures or values identified in limitation [8]
of the claim, which is how items are conventionally graphed. The claim
Appeal 2020-001849
Application 14/866,562

18
refers to the process as “dynamically generating a data visualization,” but
the “visualization” is just a graph comprising graphical elements.
The end result of the “data visualization” in rejected claim 1 is the
display of data, with no functionality associated with the display other than
enabling a user to visualize the data. It is therefore just information. As
explained in Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344–45
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (first alteration in original):
We have recognized that “[i]nformation as such is an intangible”
and that collecting, analyzing, and displaying that information,
without more, is an abstract idea. [Elec. Power Grp., LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]; see also
id. at 1355 (noting claim requirement of “ ‘displaying concurrent
visualization’ of two or more types of information” was
insufficient to confer patent eligibility). We have also held that
claims directed to displaying two different information sets
sequentially are abstract. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed to abstract
idea of “showing an advertisement before delivering free
content”). Similarly, we have held that claims directed to a single
display of information collected from various sources are
abstract. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin.
Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341–42 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding claims
which recited creating a “dynamic document” using content from
multiple electronic records ineligible under § 101).
While the method of displaying the data using the recited graphical
elements and axes, and positioning, placing, and sizing them as specified in
limitation [11] of the claim, may be an improvement over previous graphing
methods, the display of information, per se, is not patent-eligible, and
Appellant has not identified an additional element in the claim, beyond the
abstract idea, that integrates the judicial exception into practical application.

Step 2B
Appeal 2020-001849
Application 14/866,562

19
Because we determined that the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B of the Eligibility
Guidelines, which asks whether there is an inventive concept. In making this
Step 2B determination, we must consider whether there are specific
limitations or elements recited in the claim “that are not well-understood,
routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an
inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends
well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception,
indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56. We must also consider whether the combination
of steps performs “in an unconventional way and therefore include[s] an
‘inventive concept,’ rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B.” Id. In this part
of the analysis, we consider “the elements of each claim both 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.
The receiving and selecting steps [1]–[4] were found by the Examiner
to be data gathering steps and insignificant extra-solution activity. Non-Final
Act. 5. The Examiner found that the steps did not impose a meaningful limit
on the practice of the abstract idea, and, furthermore, did not supply an
inventive concept to the abstract idea. Id. at 6.
In response, Appellant states “the claims recite various ways in which
data retrieved by a query is processed and presented in specific ways in a
way that involves ‘transformations’” and that “the transformations in the
pending claims are not ‘routine or conventional,’ and the additional
Appeal 2020-001849
Application 14/866,562

20
limitations do not ‘merely link’ the other limitations to ‘a particular
technological environment.’” Appeal Br. 12–13.
We have considered this argument but do not find it persuasive.
Appellant did not identify a specific limitation in the claim which serves as
an additional element, which, in combination with the abstract idea of step
[11], provides an unconventional and inventive solution. Appellant makes
assertions, but only vaguely refers to the claims, and specifically does not
identify which elements of the claim provide the inventive concept.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–15, 17–21 101 Eligibility 1–15, 17–21

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

AFFIRMED