Victor Moroz et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 24, 2019

14906543 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2019)

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.
14/906,543 01/20/2016 Victor Moroz SYNP 2385-3 3242
36454 7590 09/24/2019
SYNOPSYS, INC. C/O HAYNES BEFFEL & WOLFELD LLP
P.O. BOX 366
HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019
EXAMINER
BOWERS, BRANDON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2851
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2019 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):
docket@hmbay.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte VICTOR MOROZ, STEPHEN LEE SMITH, YONG-SEOG OH,
MICHAEL C. SHAUGHNESSY-CULVER, JIE LIU,
and TERRY SYLVAN KAM-CHIU MA
____________

Appeal 2018-008937
Application 14/906,543
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 21–42.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 An oral hearing for this Appeal, which was scheduled to be held on July
22, 2019, has been waived.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Synopsys,
Inc. Appeal Br. 4.
3 Claims 1–20 have been canceled previously.
Appeal 2018-008937
Application 14/906,543

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s Specification describes a “system for evaluating candidate
materials for fabrication of integrated circuits.” See Abs.
Exemplary claim 21 under appeal reads as follows;
21. A method for swifter evaluation of candidate
materials for fabrication of integrated circuits comprising:
providing a first database relating each of a plurality of
candidate materials for an integrated circuit, with corresponding
values for each intermediate material property in a
predetermined set of intermediate material properties of the
candidate materials;
providing a second database relating values of a target
property of the candidate materials, with a plurality of
combinations of (a) values for the intermediate material
property or properties and (b) a value or values describing
candidate environments for the material in an integrated circuit;
a computer system determining a value or values of the
intermediate property or properties for a particular integrated
circuit candidate material by reference to the first database;
a computer system determining the value of the target
property for the particular candidate material in dependence
upon a look-up in the second database of, in combination, (a)
the determined value or values for the intermediate material
property or properties for the particular candidate material and
(b) a value or values describing a particular integrated circuit
environment for the particular material; and
screening the particular candidate material for use in the
particular integrated circuit environment, in dependence upon a
comparison between the determined target property for the
particular candidate material in the particular integrated circuit
environment, and predetermined criteria for adequacy,
wherein the predetermined set of intermediate material
properties constitutes one or members of the group consisting
Appeal 2018-008937
Application 14/906,543

3
of bandgap (Eg), effective mass (m*), gate dielectric band gap
band offset for the conduction and valence bands for n- and p-
type transistors, injection velocity, ballisticity, surface
roughness scattering, and uniformity of the candidate material,
wherein the candidate environments for the material
constitute one or members of the group consisting of bias
conditions, an aspect of a design rule database, an aspect of
transistor geometry, stress, and a technology node,
and wherein the target property constitutes a member of
the group consisting of Band-To-Band Tunneling (BTBT),
Direct Source-to-Drain Tunneling (DSDT), gate stack leakage,
a transistor figure of merit, transistor drive current, and
transistor switching speed.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 21–42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed
to patent-ineligible subject matter. See Final Act. 2–5.

ANALYSIS
Contentions
The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to “an abstract
idea implemented at least in part on a generic computer system.” Final Act.
2. The Examiner finds:
The steps of providing, determining, and screening are all data
manipulation using computer programming which is complex
mathematical operations to perform calculations, which in turn
is an abstract idea. The claims do not recite limitations that are
“significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims
do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical
field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself,
or any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use
of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The limitations are merely instructions to implement the
abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic
Appeal 2018-008937
Application 14/906,543

4
computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-
understood, routine and conventional activities previously
known to the industry. Therefore, claims 21-22 are directed to
non-statutory subject matter.
Final Act. 2–3. With respect to the additional elements and whether they
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the Examiner finds
other limitations do not include “an improvement to another technology or
technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or
any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract
idea to a particular technological environment.” Final Act. 4; see also Ans.
3. Based on these determinations, the Examiner concludes that the claims
are ineligible under § 101. Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues that the claimed invention is not directed to an
abstract idea because similar to the claims in Enfish,4
[t]he claims of the present patent application are directed to an
improvement in the way computers operate, specifically in the
preparation of a computer system with certain pre-calculated
databases in order to drastically speed up the process of
preliminary evaluation of candidate materials for use in future
integrated circuit technology.
Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis omitted). According to Appellant, performing the
two “providing” steps improves the computer system because “it operates
much more quickly when presented with a task to evaluate and screen an
arbitrary new candidate material” by further determining a value or values in
the first database and determining the value of the target property based on a
look-up table in the second database. Appeal Br. 9–10.

4 Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2018-008937
Application 14/906,543

5
Appellant adds the claims of the instant invention, instead of using a
computer to perform generic functions, relies on “the specific pre-
configuration of the computer system with two specific databases, and the
use by the computer system of such databases to quickly perform
preliminary evaluation of a specified candidate material for use in future
integrated circuit technology.” Appeal Br. 15. Appellant distinguishes the
claimed invention from “the conventional arrangement” of a single database
by referring to a drawing reproduced below:

Appeal Br. 16. Appellant further asserts:
[T]he division of responsibility between the two databases is
unconventional as well, since it derives from insight into the
specific problem addressed. The insight is that some aspects of
the calculation are affected by the candidate environment,
whereas others are not, and the calculation can be divided into
those two particular aspects without significant loss of
accuracy. Thus the claims call for certain parts of the
calculation that are not affected by the candidate environment
to be represented in the first database, and certain parts that are
affected to be represented in the second database.
Id.
Principles of Law
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
Appeal 2018-008937
Application 14/906,543

6
ideas” are not patentable. 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. Id. 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, 69 (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 183 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
Appeal 2018-008937
Application 14/906,543

7
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.”).
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 (citation 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.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
section 101. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”). Under that
guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
Appeal 2018-008937
Application 14/906,543

8
(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); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed.
2018)).
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 55–56. Only if a claim (1)
recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a
practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
are 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.
See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The Judicial Exception – Abstract Idea
Under the Revised Guidance, we begin our analysis by first
considering whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions, including
certain groupings of abstract ideas, in particular: (a) mathematical concepts,
(b) mental steps, and (c) certain methods of organizing human activities.
Turning to independent claim 21, we observe the claim recites, inter alia, the
following functions:
providing a first database relating each of a plurality of
candidate materials for an integrated circuit, with corresponding
values for each intermediate material property in a
predetermined set of intermediate material properties of the
candidate materials;
Appeal 2018-008937
Application 14/906,543

9
providing a second database relating values of a target
property of the candidate materials, with a plurality of
combinations of (a) values for the intermediate material
property or properties and (b) a value or values describing
candidate environments for the material in an integrated circuit;
a computer system determining a value or values of the
intermediate property or properties for a particular integrated
circuit candidate material by reference to the first database;
a computer system determining the value of the target
property for the particular candidate material in dependence
upon a look-up in the second database of, in combination, (a)
the determined value or values for the intermediate material
property or properties for the particular candidate material and
(b) a value or values describing a particular integrated circuit
environment for the particular material; and
screening the particular candidate material for use in the
particular integrated circuit environment, in dependence upon a
comparison between the determined target property for the
particular candidate material in the particular integrated circuit
environment, and predetermined criteria for adequacy, . . . .
Claim 21 (emphases added).
Thus, we conclude the aforementioned selecting, determining, and
screening functions could be performed alternatively as mental processes,
i.e., concepts performed in the human mind or using pen and paper
(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) under the
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.5 A person can perform the

5 If a method can be performed by human thought alone, or by a human
using pen and paper, it is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible
under § 101. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
839 F.3d 1138, 1146–47 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“While the Supreme Court has
altered the § 101 analysis since Cyber Source in cases like Mayo and Alice,
we continue to ‘treat[ ] analyzing information by steps people go through in
Appeal 2018-008937
Application 14/906,543

10
“providing” and “determining” steps of claim 21 by using their minds (or
pen and paper) in the claimed manner. For example, a person can obtain the
information by memorizing or writing it down and compute the recited
values based on the information contained in databases (or lookup tables) for
each target property or material, using their minds or pen and paper.
We note remaining independent claims 23, 32, and 42 recite similar
language of commensurate scope that we conclude also falls into the abstract
idea category of a mental process including the abstract idea subcategories
of an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. Id. Claim 21 recites the
additional non-abstract generic limitation of a computer system, a first
database, and a second database. Claims 22 and 42 recite the additional non-
abstract generic limitations of a computer readable medium, a plurality of
software codes for performing the functions recited in claim 21. Claim 32
recites a system including a memory and a data processor configured to
perform similar functions recited in claim 21.
We also note the recited “providing” and “determining” functions of
claim 21, and similar language recited in other independent claims merely
access information. Courts have found such data gathering steps to be
insignificant extra-solution activity. See, e.g., In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943,
963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff'd sub nom Bilski, 561 U.S. 593
(characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity).

their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially
mental processes within the abstract-idea category’” (brackets in original)
(quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).); CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes
can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the
holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Appeal 2018-008937
Application 14/906,543

11
Because we conclude all claims on appeal recite an abstract idea, as
discussed above, under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong
Two. Although claim 21 recites an abstract idea based on these mental
processes, we, nevertheless, must still determine whether the abstract idea is
integrated into a practical application, namely whether the claim applies,
relies on, or uses the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful
limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the abstract idea. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 54–55. We, therefore, (1) identify whether there are any additional
recited elements beyond the abstract idea, and (2) evaluate those elements
individually and collectively to determine whether they integrate the
exception into a practical application. See id.
Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
Further pursuant to the Revised Guidance, we consider whether there
are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54–55. We have identified supra, the additional non-abstract limitations
recited in independent claim 21 as a computer system, a first database, and a
second database.
Under MPEP § 2106.05(a) (“Improvements to the Functioning of a
Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field”), Appellant
contends the claims amount to significantly more than an abstract idea and
cites Enfish to support their assertion. Appeal Br. 12–15. We, however,
note the court held the Enfish subject claims were “not directed to an
abstract idea within the meaning of Alice.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. The
court concluded the claims were directed to “a specific improvement to the
Appeal 2018-008937
Application 14/906,543

12
way computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table” (emphases
added). Id.
We emphasize that the self-referential database table considered by
the Enfish court was found to be a specific type of data structure that was
designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in
memory. Id. at 1339. Because the Enfish court found the claimed self-
referential database table improved the way the computer stored and
retrieved data, the court concluded the Enfish claims were not directed to an
abstract idea, and thus, ended the analysis at Alice step one. Id. at 1336.
Here, Appellant has not shown that any of the features of the claims before
us on appeal improve the way the recited generic computer system and the
related components store and retrieve data in the first and second databases,
in a manner analogous to that found by the court in Enfish. See also Reply
Br. 5–6.
Furthermore, the remaining elements recited in claim 21, as well as
other independent claims, do not integrate these abstract ideas into a
practical application. The written description discloses that the recited
computer system, processor, and memory including the software code
encompass generic components such as a general-purpose processor,
memory and software modules. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 50–55, Fig. 3 (Providing
no specific definition for the term “computer system” other than listing
different types of a generic computer processor including processing
instructions that are stored in a generic memory or storage device). Simply
adding generic hardware and computer components to perform abstract ideas
does not integrate those ideas into a practical application. See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (identifying “merely includ[ing] instructions to
Appeal 2018-008937
Application 14/906,543

13
implement an abstract idea on a computer” as an example of when an
abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application).
Even assuming, without deciding, that the claimed invention can
automatically determine the values for the intermediate and target properties
of the material more efficiently than a human, the increased efficiency
comes from the capabilities of the generic computer components-not the
recited process itself including the first and second databases. See
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more
efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of
the claimed subject matter.” (quoting Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life
Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012))); see
also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 711 F. App’x 1012,
1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (alteration in original) (citation omitted)
(“Though the claims purport to accelerate the process of finding errant files
and to reduce error, we have held that speed and accuracy increases
stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general-purpose computer ‘do[
] not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.’”).
Like the claims in Fair Warning, the focus of claim 21 is not on an
improvement in computer systems or databases as tools, but on certain
independently abstract ideas that use generic computing components to
lookup values in a database as tools. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095.
Thus, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. The claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or
other technology, (2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for
a generic computer), (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article
Appeal 2018-008937
Application 14/906,543

14
to a different state, and (4) are 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).
Inventive Concept
Because we determine claim 21 is “directed to” an abstract idea, we
consider whether claim 21 recites an “inventive concept.” Under the
Revised Guidance, if a claim: ( 1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does
not integrate that exception into a practical application, we then look to
whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception
that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or, simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
56.
The Examiner determined claim 21 does not recite an inventive
concept because the additional elements in the claim “are merely
instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no
more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are
well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the
industry.” See Final Act. 3.
Appellant argues that the inventive steps includes “the specific pre-
configuration of the computer system with two specific databases, and the
use by the computer system of such databases to quickly perform
preliminary evaluation of a specified candidate material for use in future
Appeal 2018-008937
Application 14/906,543

15
integrated circuit technology,” which “is not merely in the use of a computer
to perform generic functions.” Appeal Br. 15 (citing Bascom Global Internet
Services., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); see
also Reply Br. 7. Appellant specifically argues the use of two databases and
“the division of responsibility between two databases” constitute an
unconventional use of databases. Appeal Br. 16.
We are unpersuaded. First, Appellant’s claims can be distinguished
from patent-eligible claims such as those in Bascom, where the system
claims were directed to a “content filtering system for filtering content
retrieved from an Internet computer network,” which the court held were
directed to an abstract idea. Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1348–49. The court further
held the claims included an inventive concept in the ordered combination of
system components, including a local client computer and a remote ISP
server connected to the client computer and Internet computer network
providing for “the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote
from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end
user.” Id. at 1350. Appellant has failed to establish that claim 21 includes a
similar or analogous arrangement or “ordered combination” of components,
and, instead, make only the conclusory statement that the recited first and
second databases used to determine intermediate property values or target
property values are “non-traditional” and “improve[] the functioning of the
computer.” See Appeal Br. 14–17.
Second, the additional elements recited in the claim include
“providing a first database,” “providing a second database,” and “a computer
system” that determines and screens “a value or values of the intermediate
property or properties” and “the value of the target property for the
Appeal 2018-008937
Application 14/906,543

16
particular candidate material.” The claim recites these elements at a high
level of generality, and the written description provides no details about
calculating the values, adding them to the databases, or determining the
values to screen a particular candidate material to show there is anything
about using the databases that is not routine or conventional, and
determining material property values in the databases and comparing them
to determine the target property for a particular material is certainly a well-
established practice in the integrated circuit fabrication arts. See, e.g., Spec.
¶¶ 24–34 (describing routine ways for determining values based on a look-
up in a database containing pre-calculated values), 50–55 (describing
generic and conventional computing and storage components for providing
databases, determining values, and screening the candidate material).
Consequently, we find that the above-identified claim elements constitute no
more than what would have been well-understood, routine and conventional
to a skilled artisan. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368
(2018).6

6 A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional
nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as
well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a
commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the
additional 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). Memorandum on Changes in Examination Procedure
Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility
Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) (Apr. 19, 2018) available at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-
20180419.PDF
Appeal 2018-008937
Application 14/906,543

17
Conclusion
For at least the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that
claim 21 is “directed to” an abstract idea and does not recite an “inventive
concept.” Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 and
the remaining claims which fail to include additional elements that add
significantly more to the abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21–42 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
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).

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis  Affirmed Reversed
21–42 § 101  21–42

AFFIRMED