Shakeri, Cirrus et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 21, 2020

14586513 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 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.
14/586,513 12/30/2014 Cirrus Shakeri 000140-006200US 4965
58735 7590 08/21/2020
Fountainhead Law Group P.C.
Chad R. Walsh
900 LAFAYETTE STREET
SUITE 301
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
EXAMINER
SECK, ABABACAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2122
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2020 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@fountainheadlaw.com
klhussain@fountainheadlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CIRRUS SHAKERI, HARTMUT VOGLER, PUNTIS
JIFROODIAN-HAGHIGHI, and YVONNE BAUR
Appeal 2019-002955
Application 14/586,513
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ADAM J. PYONIN, and MELISSA
A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. 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
SUCCESSFACTORS, INC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002955
Application 14/586,513

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to a “computer automated learning system
for individuals in an organization” used to “get more employees to enroll in
and finish trainings that will help them do their job better to help every
employee stay competitive in the market.” Spec. ¶ 6, 34. Claims 1–8 and
10–20 are pending; claims 1, 14, and 20 are independent. Appeal Br. 18–23.
Claim 14 is reproduced below for reference (with added limitation lettering
and some formatting):
14. A computer system comprising: [a] a processor; and [b] a
non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon
one or more programs, which when executed by the processor,
causes the processor to:
[c] store data in a learning graph, the learning graph
comprising nodes and edges,
[c-1] wherein a plurality of content nodes represent
learning content, a plurality of person nodes represent
individuals, and a plurality of learning strategy nodes comprise
strategy algorithms for traversing nodes and edges of the learning
graph to identify content, and wherein edges between nodes
comprise association types defining particular relationships
between particular nodes,
[c-2] wherein a first edge between a particular
content node and a particular person node establishes a first
association type, the first edge indicating that learning content
corresponding to the particular content node has been consumed
by an individual corresponding to the particular person node, and
wherein a second edge between at least one person node and a
learning strategy node has a preference association type;
[d] retrieve at least one strategy algorithm from at least one
learning strategy node in the learning graph in response to a user
request from a user corresponding to a first person node in the
learning graph,
Appeal 2019-002955
Application 14/586,513

3
[d-1] wherein the first person node and the at least
one learning strategy node are coupled together by an edge
having said preferred association type;
[e] determine association types for edges between the first
person node and other person nodes in response to the user
request map parameters about the user to person nodes to
determine associations between the user and other nodes in
response to the user request;
[f] adaptively determine whether the other person nodes
are to be included in the execution of the at least one strategy
algorithm based at least on parameters stored in the at least one
learning strategy node and the first person node;
[g] exclude other person nodes from execution of the at
least one strategy algorithm based on the determination; and
[h] execute the at least one strategy algorithm on the first
person node and the included other person nodes.
The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1–8 and 10–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non–statutory subject matter. Final Act. 2–5.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner determines the claims are patent ineligible under
35 U.S.C. § 101, because the claims “do not amount to significantly more
than an abstract idea.” Final Act. 2; see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208, 217–218 (2014) (describing the two-step framework “for
distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts.”).
Appeal 2019-002955
Application 14/586,513

4
Prior to the filing of Appellant’s Reply Brief—but after the filing of
the Appeal Brief and mailing of the Final Action and Examiner’s Answer–
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published revised guidance
on the application of § 101 (“Guidance”).2 See 2019 Revised Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility Guidance Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Notice”); see also USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter
Eligibility (“October Update”) at 17 (available at https://www.uspto.
gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf). “All USPTO
personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to
follow the guidance.” Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51; see also October Update
at 1.
Under the Guidance, 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) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th
ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).

2 Appellant contends “the present Appeal is rendered moot under the 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.” Reply Br. 2. The
Guidance, however, merely “sets out agency policy with respect to the
USPTO's interpretation of the subject matter eligibility requirements of 35
U.S.C. § 101 in view of decisions by the Supreme Court and the Federal
Circuit.” Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. Thus, the Examiner’s eligibility
rejection is properly before us on appeal. See October Update at 17 (“It is
the rejection under § 101, and not any alleged failure to comply with the
2019 [Guidance], that is reviewed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.”).
Appeal 2019-002955
Application 14/586,513

5
Notice, 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, does the Office 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.

Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56.

A. Step 2A, Prong One
The Examiner determines the claims recite “retrieving strategy
algorithms from a learning graph with nodes based on a user request,” which
is similar to concepts found to be abstract. Final Act. 3 (citing Elec. Power
Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016), 4.
We determine claim 14 includes limitations that recite abstract
concepts under the Guidance. Limitations [c] and [d] recite storing and
retrieving information. Sub-limitations [c-1], [c-2], and [d-1] specify the
type of information (relating to information on individuals and learning).
Thus, these limitations are steps of observation and evaluation, which are
examples of mental processes that can be performed in a person’s mind or
with pen and paper, pursuant to the Guidance. See Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. at
52. Limitations [e], [f], and [g] determine connections and strategies based
on the information, and are steps of evaluation, judgment, opinion; these are
examples of mental processes that can be performed in a person’s mind or
with pen and paper, pursuant to the Guidance. See id. Limitation [h]
Appeal 2019-002955
Application 14/586,513

6
performs a strategy algorithm based on the determinations, and is similarly a
step of evaluation, judgment, opinion; it is an example of mental processes
that can be performed in a person’s mind or with pen and paper, pursuant to
the Guidance. See id.
Pursuant to the Guidance, we conclude that the claim recites a judicial
exception (a mental process). See Ans. 14, 15; Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54;
October Update at 7, 8. Such analysis accords with our case law. See Elec.
Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354–55 (finding a claim directed to the abstract
idea of “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results”
to be ineligible); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (“The focus of the claims, as reflected in what is quoted above, is
on selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques,
and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis. That is all abstract.”);
Ubisoft Entm't, S.A. v. Yousician Oy, No. 2019-2399, 2020 WL 3096369, at
*3 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2020) (“the claims recite nothing more than a process
of gathering, analyzing, and displaying certain results. For example, the
specification describes the generation of ‘mini-games’ as. . . . no different
from the ordinary mental processes of a guitar instructor teaching a student
how to play the guitar”).
As we determine that independent claim 14 recites a judicial
exception under Prong One of the Guidance, we continue our analysis under
Prong Two. See Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54; October Update at 10.

B. Step 2A, Prong Two
Appellant contends the claims are patent eligible, because “the
claimed invention is a way to achieve computationally efficient and highly
Appeal 2019-002955
Application 14/586,513

7
customized results for particular users.” Appeal Br. 12. According to
Appellant, “the specification supports the claimed invention being a
technical improvement in computer capabilities,” as the “specification
clearly states that the claimed invention deviates from a simplistic, relational
model in favor of the claimed dynamic learning graph to achieve customized
results.” Id. at 13, 14.
Claim 14 recites limitations [a] (“a processor”), and [b] (“a non-
transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon one or more
programs . . . executed by the processor”). Pursuant to the Guidance, these
are additional elements beyond the recited judicial exception. See Notice, 84
Fed. Reg. at 54, 55; Final Act. 5; Ans. 10, 22. We disagree with Appellant’s
contentions that the recited additional elements remove the claims from the
realm of ineligible subject matter. See Appeal Br. 12. Rather, these
elements do “not impose any meaningful limit on the computer
implementation of the abstract idea.” Ans. 10. The claim confines the
recited abstract idea to a processor, which “merely uses a computer as a tool
to perform an abstract idea.” Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Ans. 16; see also
Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367
(Fed. Cir. 2019) (“On its face, the ’251 patent seeks to automate ‘pen and
paper methodologies’ to conserve human resources and minimize errors.
This is a quintessential ‘do it on a computer’ patent.”).
Furthermore, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in determining
that “[t]here is no indication that the combination of elements improves the
functioning of a computer or improves another technology.” Ans. 15
(emphasis omitted). Appellant’s arguments regarding computational
efficiency (see, e.g., Appeal Br. 13) are conclusory. Similarly, the
Appeal 2019-002955
Application 14/586,513

8
Specification provides, at most, an assertion of efficiency without
sufficiently detailing what is being made more efficient or how the
efficiency is achieved. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 36;3 Ans. 20 (“Appellant did not
disclose in the specification any improvement related to the functioning of a
computer or the organization of a logical structure in software to improve
computer capacity.”). Thus, these arguments do not persuade us the
Examiner’s analysis is in error. See October Update at 12 (“[F]irst the
specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides
sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
the claimed invention as providing an improvement.”), 13 (“If the examiner
concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden
shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any
necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that the disclosed invention improves technology”); Ans. 9, 10.
Based on the record before us, we determine the claim recites a
judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical
application, therefore, the claim is “directed to the . . . judicial exception.”
Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.

3 Rather than showing a technical benefit, the invention—as described in the
Specification—may save a corporation effort and money when training its
workforce. See Spec. ¶ 37 (“Embodiments of the present disclosure may
help organizations be better equipped for rapid changes in the environment
by keeping an agile workforce of lifelong learning.”); ¶ 44 (“Learning paths,
which may represent a sequence of consumption for learning content, may
be dynamic and customized for different users based on each user’s learning
history.”).
Appeal 2019-002955
Application 14/586,513

9
C. Step 2B
Appellant contends the “Examiner erroneously failed to apply step-
two of the two-step Alice test,” as “[n]o . . . finding of fact has been made.”
Appeal Br. 16 (certain capitalization and underlining omitted), 17.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. The Examiner determines
that the additional elements recited by independent claim 14—individually
and in combination—are well understood, routine, and conventional. See
Ans. 22. We find the Examiner’s determination to be reasonable, in view of
the record before us. See Spec. ¶¶ 2–5, 35, 135–137; Alice, 573 U.S. at 226
(“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and
‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and
transmission functions required by the method claims.”). In response,
Appellant has not identified additional elements that amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. See Appeal Br. 15–17; Notice, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 55–56. Thus, we determine the claim limitations, individually and as
an ordered combination, do not provide significantly more than the recited
judicial exception.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in determining independent
claim 14 is patent ineligible. We sustain the Examiner’s eligibility rejection.

CONCLUSION
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding independent claim
14 to be patent ineligible. Independent claims 1 and 20 recite similar
limitations, which we determine are ineligible for the same reasons.
Appellant does not present separate substantive arguments for the dependent
claims. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal 2019-002955
Application 14/586,513

10

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 10–20 101 Eligibility 1–8, 10–20

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).
AFFIRMED