SURECLINICAL INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2021

2020005675 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 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.
15/376,632 12/12/2016 Zachariah Schmidt 104037-5004-US 3715
24341 7590 03/29/2021
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (PA)
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124
EXAMINER
ULLAH, ARIF
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2021 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):
padocketingdepartment@morganlewis.com
vskliba@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ZACHARIAH SCHMIDT and PIOTR DZIEWONSKI
_____________

Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final
rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5–20. Claims 2 and 4 are canceled. 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) (2019). According to Appellant, the real party in interest
is SureClinical Inc. See Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
Embodiments of the disclosed and claimed invention on appeal relate
“generally to project management systems, and more particularly, to systems
that display interactive project tracking information.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Representative Claim 1
1. A method for updating a task component status, including:

displaying, on a display of an electronic device, a first
graphical user interface that includes a first interactive task
completion control that includes:

indicia of a first time range that corresponds to a first task,
wherein the first task includes a first plurality of task
components,

indicia that correspond to at least one completed task
component of the first plurality of task components, and

indicia that correspond to a plurality of uncompleted task
components of the first plurality of task components;

detecting, at a location that corresponds to the first
interactive task completion control, a first user input that
interacts with the first interactive task completion control;

in response to detecting the first user input, displaying,
overlaid over the first graphical user interface, a task tracker
user interface that includes a plurality of interactive
controls that correspond to at least a subset of the first
plurality of task components;

detecting a second user input at a location that corresponds
to a first interactive control of the plurality of interactive
controls, wherein the first interactive control corresponds to
Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

3

a first uncompleted task component of the plurality of
uncompleted task components;

in response to the second user input, selecting the first
uncompleted task component;

while the first uncompleted task component is selected,
detecting a third input for uploading a user-selected
document that corresponds to the first uncompleted task
component;

in response to detecting the third input:

changing the status of the first uncompleted task
component, and

uploading the user-selected document; and

updating the first graphical user interface using the changed
status of the first uncompleted task component.

Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App.) (Disputed dispositive limitations emphasized
regarding obviousness Rejection B of claim 1).

Evidence Relied Upon by the Examiner

Name Reference Date
Taylor et al. (“Taylor”) US 6,292,830 B1 Sept. 18, 2001
Barrett US 2005/0160084 A1 July 21, 2005
Musso US 7,353,183 B1 Apr.1, 2008
Holler et al. (“Holler”) US 8,875,088 B1 Oct. 28, 2014

Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

4

Table of Rejections
Rejection Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis
A 1, 3, 5–20 101 Eligibility
B 1, 3, 6–12,
15–18, 20
103 Barrett, Musso
C 5 103 Barrett, Musso, Holler
D 13, 14, 19 103 Barrett, Musso, Taylor
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.

Rejection A Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
USPTO 35 U.S.C. § 101 MPEP Guidance
In January and October of 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office (“USPTO”) published revised guidance on the application of
35 U.S.C. § 101.2 We note the USPTO current eligibility guidance is found
in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of
Patent Examination Procedure (“MPEP”), and particularly within Sections
2103 through 2106.07(c). Accordingly, all references to the MPEP

2 See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance”) and USPTO, October 2019
Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October 2019 Update”). “All
USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected
to follow the guidance.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 51; October 2019 Update at 1.
Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

5

throughout this Decision are to the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (Last
Revised June 2020), unless otherwise indicated.
Under MPEP § 2106, 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 (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).3

MPEP § 2106, Step 2A, Prong One
The Judicial Exception
Under MPEP § 2106.04(a), the enumerated groupings of abstract
ideas are defined as follows:
(1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships,
mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical
calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
(2) Certain methods of organizing human activity –
fundamental economic principles or practices (including
hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal
interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts;
legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities
or behaviors; business relations); managing personal
behavior or relationships or interactions between people
(including social activities, teaching, and following rules or
instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and

3 “Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by:
(1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim
beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional
elements individually and in combination to determine whether they
integrate the exception into a practical application.” MPEP § 2106.04(d)II.
Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

6

(3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind
(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
(see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, the Examiner determines the claims recite
the judicial exception of a mental process:
[T]he claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts
performed in the human mind (including an observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion), which falls into the “Mental
Process” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract
ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG.
Non-Final Act. 4 (emphasis added).
Appellant disagrees, and notes that the claims require user
interactivity. In particular, Appellant emphasizes that “the claims involve
detecting multiple user inputs interacting with portions of a displayed user
interface, and performing operations in the user interface in response to the
detected inputs.” Appeal Br. 15–16.
We agree with the Examiner to the extent that we conclude at least the
“selecting” of “the first uncompleted task component” could be performed
alternatively by a person as a mental process, as defined under MPEP
§ 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
However, we additionally conclude that method claim 1, considered
as a whole, involves certain methods of organizing human activity, as
defined under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II, such as managing tasks
within a project, in accordance with the exemplary description in
Appellant’s Specification: “This application relates generally to project
management systems, and more particularly, to systems that display
interactive project tracking information.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

7

Thus, we conclude that when the claims are construed under the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, they
encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people, as defined as an example of certain methods of organizing
human activity, under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.
We note similar limitations of commensurate scope are recited in
independent system claim 15 and independent medium claim 20. We
emphasize that combining several abstract ideas does not render the
combination any less abstract. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855
F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to
another abstract idea . . . does not render the claim non-abstract.”); see also
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (determining the pending claims were directed to a combination of
abstract ideas).
MPEP § 2106.04(a) guides that “[i]f the identified limitation(s) falls
within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to
conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One.” In
such case, “[t]he claim then requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong Two,
to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP § 2106.04(d).” MPEP
2106.04(a).
Because we conclude that all claims 1, 3, and 5–20 recite an abstract
idea, as identified above, under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A,
Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

8

Prong Two, in which we apply the guidance set forth under MPEP
§ 2106.04(d).4

Step 2A, Prong Two Under MPEP § 2106.04(d),
Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical
application under MPEP § 2106.04(d) include:
1. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any
other technology or technical field — see MPEP
§ 2106.05(a);
2. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a
particular machine — see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
3. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article
to a different state or thing — see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
4. Applying or using the judicial exception in some other
meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment,
such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception — see MPEP
§ 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of integration into a
practical application include:
1. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or merely including instructions to
implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a
computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea — see MPEP
§ 2106.05(f);
2. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial
exception — see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and

4 We note that each dependent claim includes all the limitations of the
claims from which it depends.
Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

9

3. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a
particular technological environment or field of use — see
MPEP § 2106.05(h).
See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I) (Describing Step 2A, Prong Two).

Additional Limitations
Applying the USPTO guidance under MPEP § 2106.04(d), we
consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
We note that claims 1, 3, and 5–20 recite steps or functions that are
intended to be implemented by a computer and/or a computer system
including one or more processors. Although method claim 1 is silent
regarding any literal mention of a computer or processor, claim 1 recites:
“displaying, on a display of an electronic device, a first graphical user
interface . . . .” (emphasis added).
Independent claim 15 recites “one or more processors” and
independent medium claim 20 recites “A non-transitory computer readable
storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs
comprising instructions, which when executed, cause a device to: [perform
functions].” We further note the supporting exemplary, non-limiting
descriptions of generic computer components found in the Specification.
For example, see Spec. ¶ 123:
Features of the present invention can be implemented in, using,
or with the assistance of a computer program product, such as a
storage medium (media) or computer readable storage medium
(media) having instructions stored thereon/in which can be used
to program a processing system to perform any of the features
presented herein.

Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

10

We emphasize that McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America
Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), guides: “The abstract idea exception
prevents patenting a result where ‘it matters not by what process or
machinery the result is accomplished.’” 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O’Reilly
v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added).
Here, we find Appellant’s claimed invention merely implements the
abstract idea using instructions executed on generic computer components.
Therefore, we conclude Appellant’s claims 1, 3, and 5–20 merely use a
generic programmed computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See
MPEP § 2106.05(f).

Extra- or Post-Solution Activities Under MPEP § 2106.05(g)
“[T]he prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be
circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular
technological environment’ or [by] adding ‘insignificant post[-]solution
activity.’” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–12 (2010) (quoting
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191–92 (1981)).
Here, we conclude that independent claim 1 recites one or more
additional limitations that are extra-solution activities the courts have
determined to be insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter
into a patent-eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
For example, we conclude that the claim 1 steps of “displaying”
indicia (i.e., displaying data), “detecting” user input (i.e., gathering data),
and “updating” (i.e., sending data) recite insignificant extra-solution
activities (e.g., data gathering, storing, sending). Cf. buySAFE v. Google,
Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and
Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

11

sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not
even arguably inventive.”). We note similar limitations of commensurate
scope are recited in independent claims 15 and 20.

MPEP § 2106.05(a) — Improvement to the Functionality of a
Computer or Other Technology or Technical Field.
Applying the guidance under MPEP § 2106.05(a), we consider
whether there are any claimed improvements to the functioning of a
computer or to any other technology or technical field.
Appellant focuses on the description in paragraphs 3 and 23 of the
Specification of conducting clinical trials to collect safety and efficacy data.
Appeal Br. 17. Appellant urges:
These benefits of the claimed solution, described for example in
paragraphs 3 and 23 of the application, supports a conclusion
that, like the claims in Core Wireless Licensing, the
claims here provide “a specific improvement over prior
systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic
devices.”
Id. (emphasis added).
The Examiner disagrees with Appellant, and further explains the basis
for the rejection: “Appellant presents a business solution to a business
problem; not a technical solution to a technical problem.” Ans. 5.
The Examiner finds that a “business or process improvement is not a
technical improvement.” Id. The Examiner does not find that any elements
of Appellant’s claims and/or specification “would improve or allow the
computer to perform a function[] not previously performable by the
computer, or improve the functioning of the computer itself.” Id.
Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

12

Regarding Appellant’s reliance (Appeal Br. 15, 17) upon Core
Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc. (880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir.
2018)), we note that in Core Wireless the claimed invention specified
particular technological functionality in the form of “an application
summary that can be reached directly from [a] menu” such that the summary
window “is displayed while the one or more applications are in an
unlaunched state.” Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1362–63.
Here, Appellant contends:
The specific language of the claims presents a solution
that enables a user not only to view project progress, but also to
update project data quickly via a unified user interface, thereby
facilitating the monitoring of project progress, which in
turn reduces the number of inputs needed to perform intended
operations and improves the visual feedback provided to the
user in response to user inputs, thus enabling the user to use
the device more quickly and efficiently. Thus, the claimed
solution is distinct from, and improves on, conventional
computer-implemented methods that either do not include all of
the recited functionality or that require complex input
sequences and menus in order to achieve it. Even more, the
claimed solution provides an improvement over ways in which
such analysis and interfacing might be attempted with head and
hand or pen and paper.
Appeal Br. 17–18 (emphasis added).
However, we conclude that Appellant’s claimed “method for updating
a task component status” (e.g., see Figure 5) in which project tasks are
displayed in various states of completion is unlike the improved user
interface in Core Wireless (880 F.3d at 1359-63) that enabled users to more
quickly access stored data and associated programs in small-screen devices.
Here, Appellant’s claimed tasks are not applications or programs to be
invoked that are associated with certain types of data, as was the case in
Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

13

Core Wireless. Id. Appellant’s claimed tasks are tasks in a business project,
with each task having start and end dates that are distinguished from the
executable applications invoked by the user in Core Wireless. See Spec.
¶ 43. Therefore, we are of the view that Appellant’s claimed GUI is unlike
the improved user interface in Core Wireless that provided an improvement
in the functioning of computers, particularly those computing devices having
small screens. See Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1359–63.
Cf. with e.g., Appellant’s Spec. ¶ 43: “In some embodiments, a start
date 310 and an end date 312 for one or more tasks 300 are automatically
generated based on a number of task components (e.g., objects 302) of task
300 and productivity values for one or more users 314 of the task 300.” See
also, e.g., Spec. ¶ 44: “In an illustrative example, project 110a is a clinical
trial for a pharmaceutical product, task 300a corresponds to a first phase of
the clinical trial and task 300b corresponds to a second phase of the clinical
trial.” (emphasis added).
See also the Federal Circuit’s own summary of the user interface that
was considered to be an improvement in small screen computing devices in
Core Wireless:
And in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics,
Inc., we held patent eligible claims directed to an improved
user interface that enabled users to more quickly access stored
data and programs in small-screen electronics. 880 F.3d 1356,
1359–63 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We determined that the claimed
invention in Core Wireless “improve[d] the efficiency of using
the electronic device by bringing together a limited list of
common functions and commonly accessed stored data, which
can be accessed directly from the main menu.” Id. at 1363. We
therefore held that “the claims [we]re directed to an
improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly those
with small screens.” Id.
Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

14

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir.
2020) (emphasis added).
Turning to the Reply Brief, Appellant essentially restates the same
argument:
Like the claims in Core Wireless, the claims in the present
application provide the user with quick access to additional
features of the “first graphical user interface” without
initially cluttering the user interface (for example by displaying
the “task tracker user interface” and providing the user with
access to its features in response to detecting the “first
user input”), thereby providing “a particular manner of
summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices.”
Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1362.
Reply Br. 10.

However, as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(a):
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in
improving the technology, the claims must recite the details
regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which
the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer
to the performance of the method . . . . Merely adding generic
computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.
Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to
perform the method on a generic component or machinery to
qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.
(Emphasis added).
Here, Appellant does not show how the claimed method for updating
a task component status provides any improvement similar to in the Core
Wireless improved user interface that “enabled users to more quickly access
stored data and programs in small-screen electronics” so as to improve the
Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

15

efficiency of the electronic device. Uniloc USA, 957 F.3d at 1307 (citing
Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1359-63).
Accordingly, on this record, we conclude that independent method
claim 1, and independent claims 15 and 20, which recite similar limitations
of commensurate scope, do not recite an improvement to the functionality of
a computer or other technology or technical field. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
To the extent that Appellant’s “method for updating a task component
status” (claim 1) automates a manual project task planning process, we note
that the “‘mere automation of manual processes using generic computers’ . .
. ‘does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology,’”
Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
(quoting Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055
(Fed. Cir. 2017). And “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental
process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C.
v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir.
2012); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[R]elying on a computer to perform routine tasks more
quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”).
To the extent that Appellant’s independent method claim 1,
independent system claim 15, and independent medium claim 20, are an
improvement over prior-art methods, systems, and mediums, and in light of
our reversal of the Examiner’s rejections under section 103 infra, we note
that an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 90 (2012)
(holding that a novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea
is, nonetheless patent ineligible). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor
Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

16

Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new
abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”) (emphasis omitted).
In reviewing the record, we find Appellant does not advance any
persuasive arguments explaining how the claimed generic computer
components aid the method, the extent to which the computer aids the
method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method
to improve the recited computer components. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Accordingly, on this record, we conclude that independent claim 1
does not recite an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other
technology or technical field. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). As noted above,
remaining independent claims 15 and 20 recite similar limitations having
commensurate scope.

MPEP § 2106.05(b), 2106.05(c)
Appellant advances no arguments that any of the method claims on
appeal are tied to a particular machine (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), or transform
an article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)).

MPEP § 2106.05(e) Meaningful Claim Limitations
The Examiner finds that the additional elements “have been
considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating
environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high
level of generality and without imposing [a] meaningful limitation on the
scope of the claim.” Non-Final Act. 6 (emphasis added).

Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

17

Appellant disagrees, and contends:
For example, the claims here enable a user to interactively
activate a displayed control in a first graphical user interface, to
bring up an overlaid user interface with additional controls, and
also to activate a displayed control in the overlaid user interface
to interact with an uncompleted task component. The
interaction includes uploading a document related to and/or
changing a status of the uncompleted task component, an
operation for which no non-technological analog exists. The
asserted abstract idea thus ignores the computer-rooted,
interactive nature of the claimed solution, which makes the
claims meaningfully different from the abstract idea of
“concepts performed in the human mind.”
Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis added).
However, as noted above in our analysis for Step 2A, Prong One, we
determined that method claim 1, considered as a whole, also involves the
judicial exception category of certain methods of organizing human activity,
as defined under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II, such as managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e.,
managing tasks within a project), consistent with the exemplary description
in Appellant’s Specification: “This application relates generally to project
management systems, and more particularly, to systems that display
interactive project tracking information.” Spec. ¶ 2 (emphasis added).
Because Appellant does not advance any substantive, persuasive
arguments explaining how the judicial exception pertaining to certain
methods of organizing human activity (i.e., project task management) is
applied or used in some meaningful way, as clarified under MPEP
§ 2106.05(e), on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Merely adding generic hardware and computer components to
perform abstract ideas does not integrate those ideas into a practical
Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

18

application. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208,
223 (2014) (The “mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”).
Accordingly, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c) and
(e)–(h)), we conclude that all claims 1, 3, and 5–20 do not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application.

The Inventive Concept – Step 2B
As set forth under MPEP § 2106.05(d)), only if a claim (1) recites a
judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical
application,5 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 activity” in the field; 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.6
Under Step 2B, the Examiner takes Official Notice that “receiving an
input from a user associated with a level of detail with respect to data the
user wishes to view is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity

5 This corresponds to Alice part one where it is determined whether the claim
is “directed to” an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219. If a claim is
“not directed to an abstract idea under part one of the Alice [framework], we
do not need to proceed to step two.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
6 This corresponds to Alice part two where it is determined whether the
claim “contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed
abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221.
Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

19

in the art, which does not add significantly more to the claim.” Non-Final
Act. 7 (emphasis added).
Appellant disagrees, and rebuts the Examiner’s finding under MPEP
§ 2106.05(d), Step 2B:
The claims are not simply directed to any form of the alleged
abstract idea of “concepts performed in the human mind
(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).”
Rather, the claims recite “a specific implementation not
demonstrated as that which ‘any [electronic device]
engaged in the search for [a method of observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion] would likely have utilized’” and “do[] not
preempt approaches that use rules of a different structure
or different techniques.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316.”
Appeal Br. 18 (emphasis added).
Our reviewing court provides applicable guidance: “[w]hile
preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of
complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“that the claims do not preempt all price optimization or
may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make
them any less abstract”).
Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded that Appellant’s
claims do more than simply append well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception. We again emphasize that an
improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90;
see also Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151 (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is
still an abstract idea.”) (emphasis omitted).
Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

20

Moreover, because Appellant does not advance substantive,
persuasive arguments regarding any claimed non-conventional and non-
generic arrangement of known computer components, we find no inventive
concept under Step 2B in any purported ordered combination of these
limitations.
We find Appellant’s claims are unlike the claims considered by the
court in BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827
F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the court found “an inventive concept
. . . in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known,
conventional pieces.” 827 F.3d at 1350 (emphases added).
In light of the foregoing, we conclude that each of Appellant’s claims
1, 3, and 5–20, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible
abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, and does not
include an inventive concept. Therefore, on this record, we sustain the
Examiner’s Rejection A under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of all claims 1, 3, and 5–20
on appeal.7

7 Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal of Rejection A
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 1, 3, and 5–20 based upon representative
claim 1. To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive
arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are
forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

21

Rejection B of Independent Claim 1 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Issues: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err by finding the
cited combination of Barrett and Musso would have taught or suggested the
following claim 1 limitations that we determine are dispositive with respect
to the obviousness rejections on appeal:
while the first uncompleted task component is selected,
detecting a third input for uploading a user-selected
document that corresponds to the first uncompleted task
component;

in response to detecting the third input:

changing the status of the first uncompleted task
component, and

uploading the user-selected document; and

updating the first graphical user interface using the changed
status of the first uncompleted task component.

(Disputed limitations emphasized regarding obviousness Rejection B of
claim 1).
Regarding the aforementioned disputed limitations of claim 1,
Appellant urges that the combination of Barrett and Musso does not teach or
suggest:
“updating the first graphical user interface using the changed
status of the first uncompleted task component,” where the
changing of the status is performed in response to a “third user
input for uploading a user-selected document” that corresponds
to the [selected] first uncompleted task component and that is
detected “while the first uncompleted task component is
selected.”
Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

22

Appeal Br. 23 (citing Claim 1).
Appellant explains:
First, the Examiner rejects the claim feature “updating
the first graphical user interface using the changed status of the
first uncompleted task component” by arguing that this claim
feature is disclosed in Musso along with the “first user input
that interacts with the first interactive task completion control.”
See Office Action at page 31. This reasoning is improper
because, as recited in the claims, the updating of the first
graphical user interface requires not only the first user input but
also the second and third inputs, because the updating of the
first graphical user interface uses “the changed status of the first
uncompleted task component,” which occurs “in response to
detecting the third input.”
Appeal Br. 23–24.
The Examiner disagrees with Appellant, and further explains the basis
for the rejection:
As stated earlier in the Examiner’s Answer (page 8-10) Musso
teaches updating a Gantt chart based off of input. Specifically,
Musso teaches the ability to update a Gantt chart (and chart
status) based off of direct user input (agents preparing
documents) (see Musso col. 2, lines 40-15; col. 8, lines 14-30).
Further, the Appellant again believes that the prior art does not
teach “task components.” As stated in argument three above,
Barrett clearly teaches task components, and the ability to track
and update tasks/subtasks. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art
would agree that the combination of Barrett and Musso teach
all the limitations in question.

Ans. 13.
Although we agree with the Examiner that Musso teaches project task
components in a Gantt chart (e.g., see Figure 12), we agree with Appellant
that the Examiner has not fully developed the record to show that Barrett and
Musso collectively teach or suggest the disputed claim 1 temporal
Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

23

limitations that must occur during the selection of a first uncompleted task
component and in response to detecting a “third input for uploading a user-
selected document that corresponds to the first uncompleted task
component.”
We find the following argued claim 1 temporal limitations are
dispositive regarding all obviousness Rejections B, C, and D on appeal:
while the first uncompleted task component is selected,
detecting a third input for uploading a user-selected
document that corresponds to the first uncompleted task
component;

in response to detecting the third input:

changing the status of the first uncompleted task
component, and

uploading the user-selected document; and

updating the first graphical user interface using the changed
status of the first uncompleted task component.

(emphasis added).
Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons argued by Appellant in
the Briefs, as further discussed above, we are constrained on this record to
reverse the Examiner’s § 103 Rejection B of independent claim 1.
For the same reasons, we also reverse obviousness Rejection B of
remaining independent claims 15 and 20. Claims 15 and 20 recite the
aforementioned temporal limitations of claim 1 using similar language
having commensurate scope. Because we have reversed Rejection B of all
independent claims, for the same reasons, we also reverse the Examiner’s
Rejection B of all dependent claims rejected thereunder.
Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

24

Obviousness Rejections C and D
of all Remaining Dependent Claims
In light of our reversal of Rejection B of independent claims 1, 15,
and 20, supra, we also reverse Rejections C and D of all remaining
dependent claims which variously and ultimately depend therefrom. On this
record, the Examiner has not shown how the additionally cited tertiary
Holler and Taylor references overcome the aforementioned deficiencies of
the base combination of Barrett and Musso, as discussed above regarding
obviousness Rejection B of claim 1.

CONCLUSIONS
By applying the Director’s 2019 Revised Guidance and October 2019
Update, as now set forth under MPEP Sections 2103 through 2106.07(c), we
conclude that all claims 1, 3, and 5–20, as rejected by the Examiner under 35
U.S.C. § 101, are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, and 5–20 as being
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, over the cited combinations of references.

Appeal 2020-005675
Application 15/376,632

25

DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5–20 101 Eligibility 1, 3, 5–20
1, 3, 6–12,
15–18, 20
103 Barrett, Musso, 1, 3, 6–12,
15–18, 20
5 103 Barrett, Musso,
Holler
5
13, 14, 19 103 Barrett, Musso,
Taylor
13, 14, 19
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 5–20

FINALITY AND RESPONSE
Because we have sustained at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject
all claims on appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED