THE BOEING COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 29, 2020

15905117 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 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.
15/905,117 02/26/2018 Alejandro Oswaldo HERNANDEZ ROMERO 14-1900-US-CNT 8743
120226 7590 09/29/2020
Patterson & Sheridan - The Boeing Company
c/o Patterson & Sheridan, LLP
24 GREENWAY PLAZA, SUITE 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2020 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):
PAIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PatentAdmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALEJANDRO OSWALDO HERNANDEZ ROMERO,
MICHAEL J. WOICEKOWSKI and
OLEKSANDR BASANETS

___________

Appeal 2020-000555
Application 15/905,117
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEREMY J. CURCURI and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 1–2, 4–9, 11–15
and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).2 Appeal Brief 11. Claims 1, 8 and 14

1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s
determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 16, 2019), the
Reply Brief (filed October 30, 2019), the Final Action (mailed February 11,
2019) and the Answer (mailed August 30, 2019), for the respective details.

2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies The Boeing Company as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief 3.
Appeal 2020-000555
Application 15/905,117

2

are independent. Claims 3, 10 and 16 are cancelled. See Final Action 2.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter is directed to
“personnel scheduling, and more specifically, to preparing schedules of tasks
for personnel based on a likelihood that the schedules of tasks will not
exceed a personal limit of a person assigned to the itinerary and/or based on
priority ranking for the tasks.” Specification ¶ 2.
Representative Claim3
Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (bracketed step lettering
added):
1. A computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
[a] determining statistical distributions for time variances
of various operations based on time variances during past
instances of the various operations, wherein the time variances
are variances from scheduled times for the various operations;
[b] determining a plurality of time variance buffers
associated with the various operations based on statistical
distributions associated with the various operations, each of the
plurality of time variance buffers associated with at least one
confidence interval of a plurality of confidence intervals;
[c] storing the plurality time variance buffers in a
computer database, wherein at least some of the time variance
buffers are stored in aggregated form in the computer database

3 Appellant argues independent claims 1, 8 and 14 as a group. See Appeal
Brief 12. We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim
focusing on subject matter common to independent claims 1, 8 and 14. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2020-000555
Application 15/905,117

3

and wherein the aggregated time variance buffers are associated
with an aggregation identifier;
[d] retrieving the aggregated time variance buffers from
the computer database using the aggregation identifier;
[e] determining a priority for an operation of the various
operations;
[f] selecting one or more time variance buffers, of the
plurality of time variance buffers, for the various operations,
based on the determined priority, the plurality of confidence
intervals, and the aggregated time variance buffers;
[g] identifying, by operation of one or more computer
processors, a combination of operations from among the
various operations wherein a sum of scheduled times for the
combination of operations and the selected time variance
buffers for the combination of operations do not exceed a
personal time limit of personnel; and
[h] assigning the identified combination of operations to
an itinerary.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–2, 4–9, 11–15 and 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 because the claimed subject matter as being directed to a judicial
exception without significantly more. Final Action 3–6.
Claims 1–2, 4–9, 11–15 and 17–20 stand rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1–17 of U.S. Patent 9,911,101.. Final Action 6, 7.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A. Section 101
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal 2020-000555
Application 15/905,117

4

However, the U.S. 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. Pty. Ltd. 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 Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice.
Alice at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first
determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at
219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores;” 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))).
Appeal 2020-000555
Application 15/905,117

5

In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
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, 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 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), 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.”) (citation omitted).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second part
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.
B. USPTO Section 101 Guidance
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of [section] 101. See 2019
Appeal 2020-000555
Application 15/905,117

6

Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(January 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance”).4 “All USPTO personnel are,
as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the
guidance.” See 2019 Revised Guidance; see also October 2019 Update.
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) (“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”).5

2019 Revised Guidance 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:
(2) 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 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).
5 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 at 54–55.
Appeal 2020-000555
Application 15/905,117

7

(3) 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 at 52–56.

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection
The Examiner determines claims 1–2, 4–9, 11–15 and 17–20 are
patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Final Act. 4, 5; Alice, 573 U.S.
at 217 (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.”).

Step 2A—Prongs 1 and 2 identified in the 2019 Revised Guidance
Prong One
The Specification discloses:

[A] method for assigning various operations to an itinerary
includes determining Gumbel distributions for time variances of
the various operations based on time variances during past
instances of the various operations. The time variances are
variances from scheduled times for the various operations. The
method also includes selecting a reliability factor. The method
also includes determining time variances for the various
operations, based on the determined Gumbel distributions and
selected reliability factors for the various operations. The
method also includes identifying a combination of operations
from among the various operations wherein a sum of scheduled
times for the combination of operations and the determined time
variances for the combination of operations do not exceed a
personal time limit of personnel. The method also includes
assigning the identified combination of operations to an itinerary.

Specification ¶ 3.
Appeal 2020-000555
Application 15/905,117

8

Claim 1 recites a method for utilizing resources. Claim 1 recites
determining statistical distributions of time variances based upon scheduled
times for various operations and determining time variance buffers
associated with at least one confidence interval in limitations [a], [b]. Claim
1 further recites associating the variance buffers with an aggregation
identifier in limitation [c]. Claim 1 also recites determining an operation
priority, as well as, selecting time variance buffers for operations based upon
confidence intervals and aggregated time variance buffers in limitations [e],
[f]. Claim 1 recites identifying a combination of operations wherein a sum
of the operations’ scheduled times and selected time variance buffers do not
exceed the personal time limit of personnel in limitation [g].
The limitations comprise utilizing “[m]ental processes—concepts
performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion),” and “[m]athematical concepts—mathematical
relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical
calculations.” See 2019 Revised Guidance Section I (Groupings of Abstract
Ideas); see also Specification 3–5. Our reviewing courts have found claims
to be directed to abstract ideas when they recited similar subject matter. See
Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939)
(“[A] scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not patentable
invention.”); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a “series of mathematical
calculations based on selected information” are directed to abstract ideas);
Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a “process of organizing information
through mathematical correlations” are directed to an abstract idea);
Appeal 2020-000555
Application 15/905,117

9

Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d
1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of “managing a stable
value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and
manipulating the results” as an abstract idea). Therefore, we conclude the
claims recite judicial exception pursuant to Step 2A, Prong One of the 2019
Revised Guidance.

Prong Two
Under Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Guidance we must determine
“whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a
practical application of the exception.” 2019 Revised Guidance, Section
III(A)(2). We note that a “claim that integrates a judicial exception into a
practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a
manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that
the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial
exception.” 2019 Revised Guidance, Section III (A)(2).
Appellant argues, “the claims have already been found novel and non-
obvious over the references of record. See Final Office Action at 8” and
therefore the “claims reflect a novel and non-obvious technical solution to a
technical problem, and are patent eligible.” Appeal Brief 12.
We note that a finding of novelty or non-obviousness does not require
the conclusion that the claimed subject matter is patent-eligible. Although
the second step in the Mayo/Alice framework is termed a search for an
“inventive concept,” the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or
nonobviousness, but, rather, is a search for “an element or combination of
elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to
Appeal 2020-000555
Application 15/905,117

10

significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Alice,
573 U.S. at 217–18. “Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant
discovery does not by itself satisfy the § 101 inquiry.” Ass’n for Molecular
Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013). A novel and
nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent
ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90; see also Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89
(“The ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process
itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim
falls within the [section] 101 categories of possibly patentable subject
matter.”). Further, as the Federal Circuit has explained, a “claim for a new
abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics
Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appellant contends:
[C]laim 1 states that “the time variance buffers are stored in
aggregated form in the computer database” and “are associated
with an aggregation identifier'” that is used in “retrieving the
aggregated time variance buffers from the computer database.”
As taught in the specification, this is a technical improvement
that can “reduce table search times” when searching a table in a
computer database. Specification at [0068].

Appeal Brief 15.
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive because the
Specification’s paragraph 68 is silent in regard to improvements to the
claimed computer processor. Also, the technique disclosed in paragraph 68
of the Specification might reduce table search times, however the technique
does not improve the processors or otherwise provide a technical benefit.
See Appeal Brief 15. Rather, any alleged improvement to the method’s
speed arises out of the conventional advantages of using the claimed
Appeal 2020-000555
Application 15/905,117

11

computing device as a tool, and not a particular improvement to the
computing device itself. See Ans. 10; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital
One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[M]erely adding
computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process
does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”); see 2019
Revised Guidance at 55; see also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921
F.3d 1084, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This invention makes the trader faster
and more efficient, not the computer. This is not a technical solution to a
technical problem.”).
Further, we find Appellant’s claims are distinguished from those
claims that our reviewing court has found to be patent eligible by virtue of
reciting technological improvements to a computer system because the
claims merely employ processors and a database to implement the abstract
idea wherein there is no improvement to the processors. Cf., e.g., DDR
Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (Holding that claims reciting computer processor for serving
“composite web page” were patent eligible because “the claimed solution is
necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.”); Visual Memory
LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that
claims directed to “an improved computer memory system” having many
benefits were patent eligible); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Distinguishing between “claims are
directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed
to an abstract idea” or whether “the focus of the claims is on the specific
asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process
Appeal 2020-000555
Application 15/905,117

12

that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely
as a tool.”); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 222 (“In holding that the process was
patent ineligible, we rejected the argument that ‘implement[ing] a principle
in some specific fashion’ will ‘automatically fal[l] within the patentable
subject matter of § 101.’”) (quoting Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593
(1978)).
We find claim 1 does not recite any improvement to the claimed
computer processors or database, instead claim 1 only uses the computer
system to manage duty times. See Specification ¶¶ 2–5. Additionally, we
detect no additional element (or combination of elements) recited in
Appellant’s representative claim 1 that integrates the judicial exception into
a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance, Section III (A)(2). For
example, Appellant’s claimed additional elements (e.g., computer
processors, database) do not: (1) improve the functioning of a computer or
other technology; (2) is not applied with any particular machine (except for
generic devices); (3) does not effect a transformation of a particular article to
a different state; and (4) is not applied in any 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(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
Accordingly, we determine the claim does not integrate the recited
judicial exception into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance,
Section III(A)(2).
Appeal 2020-000555
Application 15/905,117

13

Step 2B identified in the 2019 Revised Guidance
In Step 2B, we need to consider whether an additional or combination
of elements, “[a]dds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that
are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is
indicative that an inventive concept may be present” or “simply appends
well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception,
which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.”
2019 Revised Guidance.
Appellant argues:
[T]he claims have already been found novel and
nonobvious over the references of record. See Final Office
Action at 8 (“Claims 1–2, 4–9, 11–15, and 17–20 would be
allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Double Patenting, set forth in this
Office action.”). This means, necessarily, that the claims include
limitations that are not “well-understood, routine, and
conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent.”

Appeal Brief 16.

We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive of Examiner error
because, as we stated above, a finding of novelty or non-obviousness does
not require the conclusion that the claimed subject matter is patent-eligible.
See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18.
Appellant argues:
The claims recite use of a “computer database,” including storing
and retrieving “time variance buffers” "in a computer database”
“in aggregated form” using “an aggregation identifier.” These
limitations “are not well-understood, routine, conventional
activity [(WRC)] in the field, which is indicative that an
Appeal 2020-000555
Application 15/905,117

14

inventive concept may be present,” and therefore the claims are
patent eligible.

Appeal Brief 19.
Appellant contends, “[t]hat is, the claims relate to use of a ‘computer
database’-storing and retrieving ‘time variance buffers’ ‘in a computer
database’ ‘in aggregated form’ using ‘an aggregation identifier’-not ‘storing
two time variance buffers in a single text file.’ A computer database is not a
text file.” Reply Brief 4.
The 2019 Revised Guidance states:
In accordance with existing guidance, an examiner’s
conclusion that an additional element (or combination of
elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must
be supported with a factual determination. For more information
concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, conventional
activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO
Berkheimer Memorandum.

2019 Revised Guidance at 56 n.36 (Section III(B) (emphasis added).
The Berkheimer Memorandum6 Section III(A) states when
formulating rejections, “[i]n a step 2B analysis, an additional element (or
combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional
unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing.”
Berkheimer Memorandum 3. The Berkheimer Memorandum provides four

6 USPTO Commissioner for Patents Memorandum dated April 19, 2018,
“Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility,
Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)”
available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-
berkheimer-20180419.PDF.

Appeal 2020-000555
Application 15/905,117

15

criteria for the Examiner to utilize to provide support for the additional
elements to be considered to be well–understood, routine or conventional.7
The Examiner determines that:
Appellant’s Specification discloses that a general purpose
computer may be used to implement the invention (Spec: ¶ 82),
thereby supporting the Examiner’s assertion that the recitation of
a “computer-implemented method” and “by operation of one or
more computer processors” (in the method claims), a processor
and a memory containing a program that, when executed on the
processors, performs a task (in the apparatus claims), and a
computer program product comprising a non-transitory
computer-readable storage medium storing code for execution by
a processor, wherein the code, when executed by a processor,
performs a task (in the article of manufacture claims) are simply
examples of general processing elements used to apply the
abstract idea at a high level of generality and they are mere tools
to implement the abstract idea.
Answer 9.
The Examiner furthers recite to MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) to support the
determination that the additional elements in the claim are well–understood,
routine or conventional. See Answer 9–11. Accordingly, we do not find
Appellant’s argument persuasive of Examiner error because, in determining
if the additional elements (or combination of additional elements) represent

7 Berkheimer Memorandum at 3–4 (Section III(A)) (“1. A citation to an
express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant
during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine,
conventional nature of the additional element(s)[] 2. A citation to one or
more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting
the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional
element(s)[] 3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-
understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s) []4. A
statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood,
routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).”).
Appeal 2020-000555
Application 15/905,117

16

well-understood, routine, conventional activity, the Examiner supported the
determination based upon a factual determination as specified in the
Berkheimer Memorandum. See Berkheimer Memorandum at 3–4 (Section
III(A)(1), (2)).
Further in Bascom, our reviewing court found that while the claims of
the patent were directed to an abstract idea, the patentee alleged an
“inventive concept can be found in the ordered combination of the claim
limitations that transform the abstract idea of filtering content into a
particular, practical application of that abstract idea.” Bascom Global
Internet Services, Inc., v. AT&T Mobility LLC 827 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir.
2016). In particular, the patent in Bascom claimed “a technology-based
solution (not an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with generic
technical components in a conventional way) to filter content on the Internet
that overcomes existing problems with other Internet filtering systems.”
Bascom at 1351.
Claim 1 is distinguishable, as it recites an abstract-idea-based
solution, that is, a method of scheduling personnel with generic technical
components (e.g., computer processor, software, database), in a conventional
way. See generally Specification. Therefore, we are not persuaded that
ordered combination of limitations in representative claim 1 provides an
inventive concept, and we find the claims simply appends a well-understood,
routine and conventional activity to the judicial exception. See 2019
Revised Guidance at 56.
Accordingly, we conclude claims 1–2, 4–9, 11–15 and 17–20 are
directed to mathematical concepts such as mathematical relationships,
mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations as identified
Appeal 2020-000555
Application 15/905,117

17

in the Memorandum and thus are directed to a judicial exception. See 2019
Revised Guidance, Section I (Groupings of Abstract Ideas). We affirm the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1–2, 4–9, 11–15 and 17–20.

Double Patenting Rejection
Appellant “acknowledges the double patenting rejection and
respectfully requests that the rejection be held in abeyance because no claim
in the present application is currently allowable.” Appeal Brief 20.
Appellant may not request that the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of
claims 1–2, 4–9, 11–15 and 17–20 be held in abeyance.8 Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1–
2, 4–9, 11–15 and 17–20.

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–2, 4–9,
11–15, 17–
20
Obviousness-Type
Double Patenting
1–2, 4–9,
11–15, 17–
20

1–2, 4–9,
11–15, 17–
20
101 Judicial Exception 1–2, 4–9,
11–15, 17–
20

8 The arguments of appellant with respect to each ground of rejection, and
the basis therefor, with citations of the statutes, regulations, authorities, and
parts of the Record relied on. The arguments shall explain why the
examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant. Except
as provided for in 35 U.S.C. §§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any arguments or
authorities not included in the Appeal Brief will be refused consideration by
the Board for purposes of the present Appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-000555
Application 15/905,117

18

Overall
Outcome
1–2, 4–9,
11–15, 17–
20

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED