Sarah Andrews et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 29, 2021

2020003773 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2021)

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.
13/337,662 12/27/2011 Sarah L. Andrews 113027.000069US1 1068
79804 7590 04/29/2021
Duncan Galloway Egan Greenwald, PLLC
9625 Ormsby Station Road
Louisville, KY 40223
EXAMINER
SCHEUNEMANN, RICHARD N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2021 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):
carnold@dgeglaw.com
kduncan@dgeglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SARAH L. ANDREWS, PEENAKI DAM,
DAMIEN FRENNET, SUMMIT CHAUDHURI,
RICARDO RODRIGUEZ, ASHOK GANAPAM,
FRANK SCHILDER, and JOCHEN LOTHER LELDNER
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
Technology Center 3600

Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KHAN, 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 1–38. 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 Refinitiv
US Organization, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the claimed invention as follows:
The present invention provides a News/Media Analytics System
(NMAS) adapted to automatically process and “read” news
stories and content from blogs, twitter, and other social media
sources, represented by news/media corpus, in as close to real-
time as possible. Quantitative analysis, techniques or
mathematics, such as green scoring/composite module and
sentiment processing module are processed to arrive at green
scores, green certification, and/or model the value of financial
securities, including generating a composite environmental or
green index. The NMAS automatically processes news stories,
filings, new/social media and other content and applies one or
more models against the content to determine green scoring
and/or anticipate behavior of stock price and other investment
vehicles. The NMAS leverages traditional and, especially, social
media resources to provide a sentiment-based solution that
expands the scope of conventional tools for creating a socially
aware composite index.
Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed annotations, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer implemented method for integrating
server-based information processing services in a client-side
application, the method comprising:
[a] integrating a set of server-based tools by an
information integration and tools framework into an application
on a client access device, wherein the server-based tools are
presented in the application on the client access device in a web-
based interface accessed through corresponding toolbar plug-ins
in the application;
[b] pre-processing, by a metadata module in the set of
server-based tools, a first set of social media information by
identifying and extracting metadata from the first set of social
media information to facilitate applying computational linguistic
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
3
processes and sentiment analysis, the first set of social media
information being individual commentary or interaction and
relating to a first set of companies and a first set of news articles
from a plurality of information sources;
[c] identifying, by the set of server-based tools, a first set
of information derived from the first set of social media
information based in part on the pre-processing, the first set of
information being associated with the first set of companies, the
first set of companies being associated with a set of securities,
the first set of information comprising a subset of information
other than securities transaction or regulatory filing information,
wherein a set of sentiment scores are derived from the first set of
social media information and are associated with the set of
securities, the derivation of the sentiment scores based in part on
the pre-processing;
[d] based upon the set of information, generating a
composite index for the set of securities;
[e] transmitting a first signal associated with the composite
index, the first signal comprising a real-time stream accessible in
the web-based interface in the application on the client access
device, wherein the real-time stream is based at least in part on
the set of sentiment scores associated with the set of securities in
the composite index;
[f] providing a set of risk-indicating patterns on a
computing device;
[g] identifying, by the set of server-based tools, a second
set of information derived from a second set of social media
information, and identifying within the second set of information
a set of potential risks by using a risk-identification-algorithm
based, at least in part, on the set of risk-indicating patterns, the
second set of information being individual commentary or
interactions and relating to a second set of companies and a
second set of news articles from the plurality of information
sources and being identified in real time and being temporally
more recent than the first set of information; and
[h] revising the composite index in substantially real time
based on the second set of information and transmitting a second
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
4
signal associated with the revised composite index, the second
signal comprising the real-time stream accessible in the web-
based interface in the application on the client access device,
wherein the real-time stream is based at least in part on the set of
risk-indicating patterns and the set of sentiment scores, and
wherein at least one user-selectable element, associated with a
server-based tool adapted to enter a user-directed command
related to the revised composite index, is presented in the web-
based interface.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Ouimet US 2008/0243716 A1 Oct. 2, 2008
Cohen US 2008/0082542 A1 Apr. 3, 2008
Usey US 2008/0208820 A1 Aug. 28, 2008
Hoogs US 2005/0071217 A1 Mar. 31, 2005
Lawrence US 2006/0004878 A1 Jan. 5, 2006
Wennberg US 2006/0129427 A1 June 15, 2006
Beldock US 6,490,565 B1 Dec. 3, 2002
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
a judicial exception to patent eligible subject matter without significantly
more. Final Act. 3–6.
2. Claims 1–6, 10–14, 17, 19–21, 23–26, 29–32, 35, 37, and 38
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ouimet, Cohen,
Usey, and Hoogs. Final Act. 6–24.
3. Claims 7–9, 22, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ouimet, Cohen, Usey, Hoogs, and Lawrence.
Final Act. 24–28.
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
5
4. Claims 15, 16, 33, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ouimet, Cohen, Usey, Hoogs, and Wennberg.
Final Act. 28–31.
5. Claims 18 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ouimet, Cohen, Usey, and Hoogs. Final Act. 31–32.
OPINION
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
Legal Principles
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
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. Alice, 573 U.S. 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.”).
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
6
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 (1853))); 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
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.”).
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
7
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 (quotation marks
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.
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“2019 Revised Guidance”).2 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of
internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51;
see also October 2019 Update at 1.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, we
first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes) (“Prong One of Step 2A”); and

2 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance.
USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October
2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
8
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th
ed., Rev. 10.201, June 2020)) (“Prong Two of Step 2A”).3
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under
Step 2B, 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.
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56.
Prong One of Step 2A
Under prong one of step 2A, we first look to whether the claim recites
any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e.,
mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities, or
mental processes). 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–54.
We start by analyzing the limitations of claim 1 to determine whether
any recite an abstract idea. Limitation [b] of claim 1, for example, recites a
pre-processing step performed by a metadata module that identifies and
extracts metadata from social media information to facilitate the application

3 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance – Section III(A)(2), 84
Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
9
of computational linguistic processes and sentiment analysis. The social
media information is commentary or interactions relating to a first set of
companies and a first set of news articles from a plurality of sources. The
Specification describes that the metadata module “is adapted to identify,
extract or apply, or otherwise discern metadata associated with news stories
and/or social media content.” Spec. ¶ 55. The metadata module pre-
processes the news stories by, for example, “sentence splitting, speech
tagging, parsing of text, tokenization, etc., to facilitate association of stories
with one or more companies and to prepare the content for the application of
computational linguistic processes and for sentiment analysis.” Spec. ¶ 55.
The sentiment analysis based on computational linguistic processes is
described in the Specification as defining “a tone of an article, blog, social
media comment, etc., usually as positive, negative or neutral, with respective
scores of +1, −1, and 0, for example. The score may be derived from text
and/or metadata (existing or newly assigned by an engine) from news/media
and may apply a predefined or learned lexicon-based and/or sentiment
pattern to the processed text/metadata.” Spec. ¶ 43. We determine that the
aforementioned processes, of sentence splitting, tokenizing, and parsing of
text to pre-process information and performing a sentiment analysis based
on linguistic techniques, may be performed mentally. Sentence splitting,
parsing, and tokening text can be performed mentally and sentiment analysis
may also be performed mentally by analyzing the social media information
and evaluating the sentiment behind the social media information, for
example, by determining whether the social media information reflect
positively or negatively on the entity.
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
10
Limitation [c], requires identifying a first set of information from the
social media information that is associated with a first set of companies but
is not information that is securities transaction or regulatory filing
information and deriving a set of sentiment scores from the social media
information. We determine that this step may be performed mentally as
well. As explained above, a sentiment score may be derived by reviewing
the social media information and gauging its tone to determine whether the
information reflect positively or negatively and assigning a score based on
the determination.
Limitation [d] recites generating a composite index for the set of
securities. The Specification describes the composite index as being
“comprised of companies certified green compliant.” Spec. ¶ 27. Further
the Specification explains that the composite index of companies “fit [a]
selection criteria, such criteria related to environmentally-conscious or
sensitive practices.” Spec. ¶ 40. We determine that generating a composite
index of companies based on a given criteria may be performed mentally.
Limitations [f] and [g] require providing a set of risk-indicating
patterns and identifying a set of potential risks from a second set of
information by using a risk-identification-algorithm based on the risk-
indicating patterns where the second set of information is derived from
social media information such as commentary or interactions about a
company or news articles. The Specification explains that keywords such as
“risk” or “threat” or regular expressions can be used to identify sentences or
phrases in the set of information that indicate risks regarding the company.
Spec. ¶¶ 81–82, 91–98. We determine that the process of using risk-
indicating patterns to identify risks in a set of information is one that can be
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
11
performed mentally, by for example, searching for keywords, or matching
certain patterns in sentences in social media information that indicate a risk.
Words and phrases such as “threat” or “cholesterol” or “North Korea
launch,” all of which are provided as examples in the Specification of
indicating risks for certain companies, can be searched for by a human
manually reviewing social media postings and articles. Spec. ¶¶ 82, 93.
Finally, limitation [h] requires revising the composite index in real
time based on the second set of information. We determine that revising the
index of companies that satisfy a certain criteria based on additional
information is a step that can be performed mentally.
In summary, various limitations of the claim require reviewing social
media information related to companies using sentiment and linguistic
analysis and determining the sentiment behind the companies, whether
positive, neutral, or negative, and also determining the presence of risks in
investing in those companies and subsequently creating an index of
companies based off of the aforementioned analysis. This process may be
performed mentally.
Mental processes, such as those recited in the limitations identified
above, are a category identified in the 2019 Revised Guidance as
constituting an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
52. Thus, under prong one of step 2A we determine the claims recite an
abstract idea.
Prong Two of Step 2A
Under prong two of step 2A of the Guidance we determine whether
the claim as a whole integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical
application of the abstract idea. A claim that integrates a judicial exception
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
12
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. To evaluate whether the claims integrate the abstract
idea into a practical application, we identify whether there are any additional
elements recited beyond the abstract idea, and evaluate those additional
elements individually and in combination.
Some exemplary considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the
Federal Circuit indicating that an additional element integrates an abstract
idea into a practical application include (i) an improvement in the
functioning of a computer or to another technological field, (ii) an
application of the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine,
(iii) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or
thing, or (iv) a use of the judicial exception in some other meaningful way
beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
Reviewing claim 1 as a whole, we note that it includes several
limitations that we did not identify above as reciting an abstract idea. For
example, the claim requires “integrating a set of server-based tools by an
information integration and tools framework into an application on a client
access device, wherein the server-based tools are presented in the application
on the client access device in a web-based interface accessed through
corresponding toolbar plug-ins in the application.” The claim also requires
transmitting real-time streams accessible in a web-based interface
application on the client device.
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
13
Appellant argues that these limitations show that claim 1 improves the
functioning of the computer and solves a technical problem, thus providing a
practical application of the alleged abstract idea. See Appeal Br. 12–20.
Specifically, Appellant argues “by implementing a pre-processing step on
the social media information by the metadata module, computational
linguistic techniques (e.g., natural language processing, author sentiment,
relevance, uniqueness, and headline analysis, Specification, para [0051]) and
sentiment analysis may be applied to the social media information may more
quickly and efficiently by the server-based information processing services.”
Appeal Br. 14. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. As explained
above, the pre-processing step involves “sentence splitting, speech tagging,
parsing of text, tokenization, etc., to facilitate association of stories with one
or more companies and to prepare the content for the application of
computational linguistic processes and for sentiment analysis.” Spec. ¶ 55.
Thus, we determine that this step recites an abstract idea, and is not an
additional element beyond the abstract idea.
Appellant next argues that claim 1 “solves the technical problem of
providing access to server-based tools and APIs, including the larger
processing power and information access afforded by a larger server system,
within an existing application on a client-side access device. Specifically,
the claimed invention solves the technical problem of integrating and
providing access to powerful server-based tools and APIs within existing
applications on client access devices.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant also argues
that “the use of an information integration and tools framework to link
server-based tools and APIs with the existing applications on a client access
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
14
device is an improvement over the prior art and any manual methods.”
Appeal Br. 16.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. Reviewing the
Specification we find that instead of solving a technical problem, the
invention provides a solution to the problem of analyzing information,
including social media information related to environmental impact of an
entity, based on attributes such as sentiment, and transforming such analysis
into a score or number that is more readily analyzable by users. See Spec.
¶ 6. The Specification explains that the current “green analytics” space is
growing and that there currently are several green analytics solutions. Spec.
¶ 12. However, these solutions suffer from shortcomings due to redundancy
stemming from the fact that they all use the same sources of information
from which to derive their metrics. Spec. ¶ 13. The invention, unlike these
prior art solutions, analyzes trends from non-traditional sources, such as
social media information. Spec. ¶ 15. Thus, the invention is intended to
provide “a system capable of automatically processing or ‘reading’ news
stories, filings, new/social media and other content available to it and
quickly interpreting the content to arrive at a higher understanding of
assessing the environmental impact of an entity (private or public).” Spec.
¶ 17. The problem described in these passages is a business problem and the
solution of determining the sentiment reflected in social media information
towards a company is a business related solution that provides a metric or
score that can then be used for investing purposes. Thus, we do not agree
that the invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem.
The invention uses a client-side toolbar plug-in for a web browser
used to interface with a web-server for performing the extra-solution activity
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
15
of presenting the sentiment score calculated using the aforementioned
sentiment based social media information analysis. Spec. ¶ 61. Neither the
claim nor the Specification indicates that the invention improves web-based
interfaces, or toolbar plug-ins. Rather these elements are used merely as
tools to perform the abstract limitations of the claim. We therefore, also
disagree with Appellant’s argument that the invention improves the
functioning of a computer.
Appellant analogizes the claimed invention to that in McRO, Inc. v.
Bandai Namco Games Amer. Inc, 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and argues
that “[l]ike the rules in McRO, the limitations of the claim invention enable a
computer to perform a function that it could not previously perform and do
so in a manner that is unlike any manual method.” Appeal Br. 15.
Appellant adds that “[s]pecifically, no manual method could perform the
pre-processing by the metadata module as claimed to improve the
application of computational linguistic processes and sentiment analysis by a
computer server-based system or integrated the server-based tools as
claimed.” Appeal Br. 15.
We disagree. In McRO, the rules were “rendered in a specific way: as
a relationship between sub-sequences of phonemes, timing, and the weight
to which each phoneme is expressed visually at a particular timing . . . .”
McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315. It was the “structure of the limited rules” that
were “limited to a specific process for automatically animating characters
using particular information and techniques” that led the Federal Circuit to
conclude that the claims were “directed to a patentable, technological
improvement.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316. Here, Appellant fails to identify
any rules recited in the claims that limit the claimed method in any way that
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
16
improves technology. Furthermore, we disagree that the limitations of the
claim, such as the claimed “pre-processing” could not be performed
manually with pen and paper. As we explain in our analysis of prong one,
the pre-processing step involves “sentence splitting, speech tagging, parsing
of text, tokenization” which are steps that can be performed mentally.
Similarly, performing a sentiment analysis of social media information using
pattern matching and calculating a sentiment score based on that analysis
could be performed mentally. The claims do not require that a large amount
of information be analyzed such that the analysis could not be practically
done by the human mind or specify a specific type of risk-identification-
algorithm that could not be performed mentally.
Accordingly, having reviewed the claim elements individually and as
a whole under prong two of step 2A, we determine that the claimed
invention does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical
application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B of the Guidance
Under step 2B of the Guidance we analyze the claims to determine
whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional
elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
Considerations that are evaluated with respect to step 2B include
determining whether the claims as a whole add a specific limitation or
combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field.
Appellant argues “[t]he manner in which the claimed invention
integrates server-based tools with an application on a client access device by
an information integration and tools framework and the manner in which the
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
17
metadata module pre-processes the first set of social media information is
not well understood, routine, and conventional activity.” Appeal Br. 16.
Appellant further argues “[t]he inventive concept can be found in the
unconventional and non-generic combination of known elements including
the presentation of the server-based tools within the application as a web-
based interface. For example, the claimed system solves the technical
problem of integrating server-side tools within a client access device
environment and does so in a novel and non-obvious manner that provides
for a technical improvement over prior art systems.” Appeal Br. 17.
Appellant’s argument that the claimed invention solves a technical
problem in a non-obvious manner is unpersuasive. Although the second step
in the Alice/Mayo framework is termed a search for an “inventive concept,”
the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather a
search for “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. A novel
and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless,
patent-ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that the integration
of server based tools on a client access device by a tools framework as a
web-based interface is a limitation that is not well understood, routine, or
conventional. Paragraphs 53 through 69 of the Specification describe the
“structural components and framework” of the claimed invention. We have
reviewed these paragraphs and determine that they do not describe a
framework that is not well understood or conventional.
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
18
Instead, the Specification describes that the invention can “be
implemented in a variety of deployments” including being structured “via a
web-based hosting solution(s) or central server.” Spec. ¶ 54. The system
“includes at least one web server that can automatically control one or more
aspects of an application on a client access device, which may run an
application augmented with an add-on framework that integrates into a
graphical user interface or browser control to facilitate interfacing with one
or more web-based applications.” Spec. ¶ 54. The system includes a server
(120) that serves data in the form of webpages with associated well known
web technologies (e.g., applets, ActiveX controls, etc.).
The client access device is also described as a well-understood device
which can be a “personal computer, workstation, personal digital assistant,
mobile telephone, or any other device capable of providing an effective user
interface with a server or database.” Spec. ¶ 60. The device includes “a
typical combination of hardware and software.” Spec. ¶ 63. The
Specification describes that an “add-on framework is installed and one or
more tools or APIs on server 120 are loaded onto one or more client
devices.” Spec. ¶ 61. “[T]his entails a user directing a browser in a client
access device, such as access device 130, to Internet-Protocol (IP) address
for an online information-retrieval system, such as offerings from Thomson
Reuters Financial and other systems, and then logging onto the system using
a username and/or password.” Spec. ¶ 61. Once logged-in, the client device
can download the integration software with corresponding toolbar plug-ins.
Spec. ¶ 61.
The aforementioned description of both the server and client side
elements are given at a fairly high level and describe well-known elements
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
19
of a conventional web-based architecture in a manner that indicates that
these elements are sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not
need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35
U.S.C. § 112(a). Accordingly, having reviewed the claim elements
individually and as a whole we conclude that the claim does not provide
significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Appellant argues claims 1–38 as a group. See Appeal Br. 10–20.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–38 under 35
U.S.C. § 101.
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(A)
The Examiner relies on Ouimet for teaching “integrating a set of
server-based tools by an information integration and tools framework into an
application on a client access device.” Final Act. 6 (citing Ouimet ¶ 49)
(emphasis omitted). The Examiner acknowledges that Ouimet does not
explicitly disclose that the “server-based tools are presented in the
application on the client access device in a web-based interface accessed
through corresponding toolbar plug-ins in the application.” Final Act. 7.
Instead, the Examiner relies on Cohen as teaching this limitation. Final Act.
7 (citing Cohen ¶ 15).
Appellant argues that none of the cited references teach “the
integration of server-based tools within an application on a client access
device.” Appeal Br. 22. Specifically, Appellant argues “[t]he user
interfaces provided in Figures 2–3 and 16–17 of Ouimet and the network
diagrams of Figure 1 of Hoogs do not disclose the information integration
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
20
and tools framework based approach of the claimed invention.” Appeal Br.
23. Appellant also argues that Usey and Cohen cannot be combined with the
disclosures of Hoogs and Ouimet to teach server based tools in an
application on a client access device. Appeal Br. 23. According to
Appellant, the “references provide only for generic user interfaces with
access to data stored in a separate location. The references do not
specifically disclose integrating server-based tools within an application in a
client access device [and] . . . also do not provide for access to the server
based tools through a web-based user interface and corresponding toolbar
plug-ins.” Appeal Br. 23.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds
Ouimet’s disclosure of a computational architecture where the user
interfaces with a web server via the user’s web browser as teaching
“integrating a set of server-based tools by an information integration and
tools framework into an application on a client access device.” Final Act. 6
(citing Ouimet ¶ 49) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further relies on
Cohen as teaching that the server-based tools are on a client access device in
a web-based interface accessed through corresponding toolbar plug-ins.
Final Act. 6–7 (citing Cohen ¶ 15). We agree with the Examiner. Cohen
teaches a client side application in the form of a plug-in that interacts with
host applications such as web browsers. Cohen ¶ 15. This plug-in is
disclosed as being “a toolbar extension application that displays a toolbar as
part of the user interface of a host Web browser.” Cohen ¶ 15. When
combined with Ouimet’s teaching of a client side application that interfaces
with a webserver, Cohen’s toolbar extension would teach:
integrating a set of server-based tools by an information
integration and tools framework into an application on a client
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
21
access device, wherein the server-based tools are presented in the
application on the client access device in a web-based interface
accessed through corresponding toolbar plug-ins in the
application
as recited in claim 1.
Appellant next argues “the user interfaces and network diagrams of
the cited references do not disclose the transmission of first and second
signals comprising real-time streams for presentation in the claimed web-
based interface on the client access device.” Appeal Br. 23.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds
Usey’s disclosure of streaming conversations and updating data in real-time
teach the first and second signals comprising real-time stream accessible in
the web-based interface in the application on the client access device. Final
Act. 8, 10 (citing Usey ¶¶ 37–39). We agree with the Examiner. Usey
teaches a system for collecting, analyzing, processing, and indexing large
amounts of data so that queries can be performed on the data easily. Usey
¶ 37. The indexes are continually updated and modified in real-time. Usey
¶ 37. Usey explains that its system processes and indexes data so that the
data is transformed and transmitted to a client in a presentable format such a
data feed. We determine that Usey’s disclosure of transmitting real-time
data in the form of a data feed to a client, combined with the web-based
interfaces disclosed in Ouimet and Cohen teach the claimed first and second
signals comprising “real-time stream accessible in the web-based interface in
the application on the client access device” as claimed in claim 1.
Appellant further argues:
none of the cited references disclose the pre-processing by the
metadata module of the social media information by identifying
and extracting metadata to facilitate applying computational
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
22
linguistic processes and sentiment analysis as in the claimed
invention. Specifically, the references Ouimet, Cohen, Usey,
Hoogs, and Lawrence, do not specifically disclose performing a
pre-processing step including “identifying and extracting
metadata” prior to identifying a first set of information from
social media information as claimed.
Appeal Br. 23. Appellant adds that in Usey, “the metadata extraction is not
a ‘pre-processing’ step” because Usey “describes the metadata extraction as
something that is performed after initial processing.” Appeal br. 24 (citing
Usey ¶¶ 70, 72–73, Figs. 4A–B).
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds
that Usey’s disclosure of performing semantic analysis on data by collecting
observations from a plurality of sources and organizing the observations into
metadata attributes, teaches the claimed pre-processing step. Final Act. 7
(citing Usey ¶¶ 7, 54); Ans. 8 (citing Usey ¶¶ 60, 73). We agree with the
Examiner. As explained above, in our analysis of the Examiner’s § 101
rejection, the “pre-processing” step entails “sentence splitting, speech
tagging, parsing of text, tokenization, etc., to facilitate association of stories
with one or more companies and to prepare the content for the application of
computational linguistic processes and for sentiment analysis.” Spec. ¶ 55.
Usey correspondingly, teaches that once data is collected, it is further
processed and organized according to temporal, spatial, and metadata
attributes and the text of the data is tokenized to allow for faster storage and
querying. Usey ¶¶ 7, 60. Usey further describes the processing of collected
text, which includes “metadata extraction” to extract any metadata, such as
headline, author, publish date, or other attributes from the collected data
before transforming the data into more suitable format for indexing. Usey
¶¶ 70–73. Just as the Specification describes pre-processing as parsing,
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
23
tagging, and tokenizing text so that subsequent linguistic processing may be
performed more easily, Usey describes tokenizing text and extracting
metadata to make the text more suitable for subsequent indexing. Usey ¶¶ 7,
60, 70–73.
We therefore, disagree with Appellant’s argument Usey’s metadata
extraction is not “pre-processing” because it occurs after initial processing.
As can be seen, Usey’s tokenizing and metadata extraction occurs before the
data is indexed and thus would teach one of ordinary skill in the art that this
extraction is part of a “pre-processing” step.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and claims 2–6, 10–14, 17, 19–21, 23–26, 29–32, 35, 37, and 38
which the Appellant argues together. See Appeal Br. 25.
Remaining Claims
Appellant argues claims 7–9, 15, 16, 18, 22, 27, 28, 33, 34, and 36
separately from claim 1 but does not rely on any new arguments for these
claims, other than to argue that the additional relied upon references “do[]
not cure the deficiencies” argued for the independent claims. See Appeal Br.
25–27.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated with respect to claim 1, we sustain
the obviousness rejections of claims 7–9, 15, 16, 18, 22, 27, 28, 33, 34, and
36.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–38 101 Eligibility 1–38
Appeal 2020-003773
Application 13/337,662
24
1–6, 10–14,
17, 19–21,
23–26, 29–
32, 35, 37,
38
103(a) Ouimet, Cohen,
Usey, Hoogs
1–6, 10–14,
17, 19–21,
23–26, 29–
32, 35, 37,
38

7–9, 22, 27,
28
103(a) Ouimet, Cohen,
Usey, Hoogs,
Lawrence
7–9, 22, 27,
28

15, 16, 33,
34
103(a) Ouimet, Cohen,
Usey, Hoogs,
Wennberg
15, 16, 33,
34

18, 36 103(a) Ouimet, Cohen,
Usey, Hoogs
18, 36
Overall
Outcome
1–38

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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) (2019).
AFFIRMED