null

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 14, 2019

14664511 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 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.
14/664,511 03/20/2015 Peter G. Martin 12361 (INVN 12361.US) 5813
23903 7590 11/14/2019
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, IP DEPARTMENT
38 Neponset Avenue
C42-12
Foxboro, MA 02035
EXAMINER
BEHNCKE, CHRISTINE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2019 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):
iom.uspros@invensys.com
stl.uspatents@stinson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER G. MARTIN and TREVOR CUSWORTH
Appeal 2019-000610
Application 14/664,511
Technology Center 3600

Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–17, and 19–23.
See Final Act. 1. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Schneider Electric
Systems USA, Inc., a subsidiary of Schneider Electric SE. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000610
Application 14/664,511
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to management of assets in a process control
system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system for improving production of a product produced a
process control system comprising:

a processor;

one or more sensors coupled to the processor, said sensors
gathering process data from one or more assets in a process control
system producing products, said sensors configured for measuring
at least one of:
an amount of material input into the process control system,

an amount of energy input into the process control system,

an amount of an asset material consumed by the process
control system,

an amount of asset flow in the process control system, and

an asset temperature of the process control system;

an asset performance measurement system providing an energy
cost, a material cost, and a product value;

one or more human-machine interfaces coupled to the processor
and the process, said human-machine interface comprising a visual
display of at least one of:

a maintenance station presenting on its visual display
information about a maintenance schedule or prior issues,

an operator station presenting on its visual display real-time
information as to current operation of an asset, and

Appeal 2019-000610
Application 14/664,511
3
an engineering station presenting on its visual display trend
information;

a storage memory coupled to the processor, said storage memory
storing data gathered by the one or more sensors, the asset
performance measurement system, and processor-executable
instructions, said processor-executable instructions configured for:

receiving process data from the one or more sensors;

determining an input cost of the one or more assets based on
the received process data from the one or more sensors, based
on the received energy cost, and based on the received
material cost;

determining an output value of the one or more assets based
on the received process data from the one or more sensors,
based on the received energy cost, and based on the received
material cost;

providing a net production value of the one or more assets
based on comparing the determined input cost and determined
output value and based on the product value;

storing the determined input cost, determined output value,
and net production value in the storage memory;

displaying the determined input cost, determined output
value, and net production value to a user on the visual display
the one or more human-machine interfaces;

automatically changing, based on at least one of the
determined input cost, determined output value, and net
production value, the process control system to modify at
least one of the amount of material input, the amount of
energy input, the amount of asset material consumed, the
amount of asset flow, and the asset temperature in such a way
that the net production value increases.
Appeal 2019-000610
Application 14/664,511
4
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1−7, 9, 10, 12−17, and 19−23 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Ans. 3.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments
for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017). For example, here Appellant argues claims 1−7, 9,
10, 12−17, and 19−23 together. Appeal Br. 7−14. We therefore decide the
appeal for this rejection based on claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. But the
Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit
exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not
patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216
(2014). To determine whether a claim falls within an excluded category, the
Court has set out a two-part 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)). That framework requires to first consider 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
Appeal 2019-000610
Application 14/664,511
5
risk.”). 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 and quotation marks
omitted).
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the Guidance, we first look to
whether the claim recites (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain
groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or
mental processes); 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))).
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 recites an inventive concept, by determining whether the
claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or

(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.

See Guidance. With these principles in mind, we turn to the
Examiner’s § 101 rejection.
Appeal 2019-000610
Application 14/664,511
6
(a) The Judicial Exception—Step 2A, Prong 1 of the Guidance
The Guidance breaks the Alice/Mayo test for identifying claims
directed to judicial exceptions into two prongs. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
53. Step 2A, Prong 1 asks whether the claims recite a judicial exception.
The Examiner determines that the claims recite “determining an input cost of
the one or more assets based on the received process data based on the
received energy cost and based on the received material cost, determining an
output value of the one or more assets based on received process data based
on the received energy cost and based on the received material cost and
based on the product value, as evidenced by the language of the independent
claims 1 and 21.” Ans. 3−4 (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, the Examiner
states that the claims recite the abstract idea of improving production of a
process control system by comparing new and stored information and using
rules to identify options. Final Act. 8. Under the Guidance, looking to the
specific limitations in claim 1, as the representative claim, we agree with the
Examiner that claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent ineligible. As set forth in the Guidance, which extracts and
synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas include (1)
mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity,
and (3) mental processes. The Examiner finds that claim 1 recites a certain
method of organizing a human activity. Ans. 8 (stating that claim 1’s
“solution is a solution for a conflict in organizing human activity:
organizing employee teams by taking into account each employee team
goal.”). We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites an abstract idea of
certain methods of organizing human activity. And we also determine that
claim 1 recites a mental process as will be explained in further detail below.
Appeal 2019-000610
Application 14/664,511
7
The following are enumerated limitations recited in claim 1, which we
analyze further in determining the abstract idea:
(A) a processor;

(B) one or more sensors coupled to the processor, said sensors
gathering process data from one or more assets in a process
control system producing products, said sensors configured for
measuring at least one of:
an amount of material input into the process control system,

an amount of energy input into the process control system,

an amount of an asset material consumed by the process
control system,

an amount of asset flow in the process control system, and

an asset temperature of the process control system;

(C) an asset performance measurement system providing an
energy cost, a material cost, and a product value;

(D) one or more human-machine interfaces coupled to the
processor and the process, said human-machine interface
comprising a visual display of at least one of:

a maintenance station presenting on its visual display
information about a maintenance schedule or prior issues,

an operator station presenting on its visual display real-time
information as to current operation of an asset, and

an engineering station presenting on its visual display trend
information;

(E) a storage memory coupled to the processor, said storage
memory storing data gathered by the one or more sensors, the
asset performance measurement system, and processor-
Appeal 2019-000610
Application 14/664,511
8
executable instructions, said processor-executable instructions
configured for:

(1) receiving process data from the one or more sensors;

(2) determining an input cost of the one or more assets based
on the received process data from the one or more sensors,
based on the received energy cost, and based on the received
material cost;

(3) determining an output value of the one or more assets based
on the received process data from the one or more sensors,
based on the received energy cost, and based on the received
material cost;

(4) providing a net production value of the one or more assets
based on comparing the determined input cost and
determined output value and based on the product value;

(5) storing the determined input cost, determined output value,
and net production value in the storage memory;

(6) displaying the determined input cost, determined output
value, and net production value to a user on the visual
display the one or more human-machine interfaces;

(7) automatically changing, based on at least one of the
determined input cost, determined output value, and net
production value, the process control system to modify at least
one of the amount of material input, the amount of energy
input, the amount of asset material consumed, the amount of
asset flow, and the asset temperature in such a way that the net
production value increases.

Appeal Br. 16−17 (Claims Appendix).
We divide the claim into two groups of limitations: structural
limitations ((A)−(E)) and step limitations ((1)−(7)). In determining the
abstract idea, we first focus on the step limitations (1)−(7), which, under
Appeal 2019-000610
Application 14/664,511
9
their broadest reasonable interpretation, contribute to a method of analyzing
the performance of an asset and improving the asset performance by
applying the result of that analysis to the process control system. The
Specification states, for instance, that an asset performance system works “to
provide users with asset performance information and to respond to that
asset performance information in order to improve the asset performance.”
Spec. ¶ 27. “An asset may be any mechanical, chemical, electrical,
biological or combined mechanism or set of mechanisms that is used to
convert energy and materials into value added products or production.” Id.
More particularly, the step limitations describe the steps of (1) receiving
process data, (2) determining an input cost, (3) determining an output value,
(4) providing a net production value, (5) storing the results of steps (2), (3),
and (4), and (6) displaying those results on a visual display. Similar activity
has been found to be patent ineligible. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom SA,
850 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (discussing gathering and analyzing
information of a specified content, and then displaying the results as patent
ineligible). As such, the recited functions are mental process that include
evaluations and opinions using gathered data and logic. See Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52. The data analysis is recited at such a high level of
generality, that it could be practically performed in the human mind. See
October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, 7 (Oct. 17, 2019) (citing
Elec. Power, 850 F.3d at 1356).
Limitation (7) recites “automatically changing . . . the process control
system to modify at least one of the amount of material input, the amount of
energy input, the amount of asset material consumed, the amount of asset
flow, and the asset temperature in such a way that the net production value
increases.” Under the broadest reasonable construction, limitation (7) is
Appeal 2019-000610
Application 14/664,511
10
directed to issuing a command to change the system so that the asset
increases in production value. For instance, the Specification describes the
controller of the system as sending “command data 212 to the connected
process,” which “causes the connected process to change operations in such
a way as to move toward the control strategy goals.” Spec. ¶ 23. The
recited change of the process control system is, therefore, merely a change
of the operating data for the system. This too is an abstract idea of a mental
process, such as performing a judgment and rendering an opinion based on
the available information, that can be practically performed by the human
mind. Cf. Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., 935 F.3d 1341,
1348 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Determining claims are abstract “where the claims
merely recite a system that communicates status information”).
In addition to a mental process, we determine that limitations (1)−(7)
also recite certain methods of organizing human activity, as stated by the
Examiner. Ans. 8. The Specification states that maximizing business
performance is the ultimate objective for most industrial operations. Spec.
¶ 30. “This common business performance-based performance measure is
referred to as asset performance.” Id. And monitoring the performance
measure of each asset with the claimed system allows for predicting how to
set up the asset performance vector to result in “maximized productivity and
minimized but efficiently spaced maintenance down time.” Id. ¶ 31; see
also ¶ 49 (“The premise that led to the development of a more business
oriented asset performance measurement system was that such a system
would encourage both better business-based decision-making in industrial
operations while simultaneously encouraging operations and maintenance to
collaborate to gain superior results.”). Thus, the recited limitations are a
process that facilitates the fundamental economic practice of evaluating the
Appeal 2019-000610
Application 14/664,511
11
profitability of a machine in an industrial setting and issuing instructions that
increase the machine’s production value. As such, the limitations (1)−(7)
recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, and
more particularly to the sub-group of fundamental economic practices or
principles. October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, 7 (Oct. 17,
2019) (citing Elec. Power, 850 F.3d at 1356) (limiting the group to the sub-
groupings of (a) fundamental economic principles or practices, (b)
commercial or legal interactions, and (c) managing personal behavior, and
relationships or interactions between people).
But another sub-group is also applicable to these claim limitations
because the Specification states that: “With this asset performance measure
as the guiding performance measure for both the operations and maintenance
teams, the level of collaboration between the teams is expected to increase,
leading to more effective problem solving and cooperation which should
result in improved performance across industrial operations.” Id. ¶ 32; see
also id. ¶ 50 (“These asset performance measures may be utilized by
maintenance, operations[,] and engineering in order to have positive
business impact on industrial operations.”). The recited calculation results
are displayed to one or more human-machine interfaces, which the claim
identifies as one of the following: (a) maintenance station, (b) operator
station, and (c) engineering station. See claim limitations (6) and (D); see
also id. ¶ 53 (“This real-time decision support information will enable all
three groups (Maintenance, Operators and Engineers) to perform their
actions and activities in a more effective manner by providing real-time
feedback of the impact of their actions, but will also encourage collaboration
and cooperation because these three teams will be working to common asset
performance measures.”). In light of the Specification, we determine that
Appeal 2019-000610
Application 14/664,511
12
limitations (1)−(7) also recite certain methods of organizing human activity,
in the sub-group of managing personal behavior or relationships or
interactions between people.

(b) Integration into a Practical Idea—Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Guidance
Step 2A, Prong 2 asks whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial
exception or whether the claims integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53 (explaining the practical
application test responds to “a growing body of decisions . . .
distinguish[ing] between claims that are ‘directed to’ a judicial exception . . .
and those that are not”). A practical application is one where the claim “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.” Id. at 54.
For example, limitations that are indicative of “integration into a practical
application” 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).

Appeal 2019-000610
Application 14/664,511
13
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 mere 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

3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment or field of use —see MPEP
§ 2106.05(h).

Focusing now on structural limitations (A)−(E), and the combination
of recited limitations, we determine that claim 1 is not directed to a practical
application of the abstract idea. Limitations (A)−(E) recite generic computer
components or logic that are conventional and do nothing more than
function as generic tools to implement the abstract idea. For instance,
limitation (A) recites a processor, limitation (D) recites visual displays, and
limitation (E) recites storage memory. These limitations do not implement
the abstract idea to a specific technical solution, such as a technical
improvement to the recited generic processor, memory, and displays.
Further, these limitations are not directed to any particular machine as the
Specification describes these as generic components. Spec. ¶¶ 75−78. The
“asset performance measurement system” of limitation (C) lacks detail as to
being any particular machine. More particularly, the Specification describes
this recited element in terms of its functions, and as such, the recitation of it
as a “system” is nothing more than a collection of algorithms performed by a
generic computer, which the Specification describes (at paragraph 75) as a
Appeal 2019-000610
Application 14/664,511
14
generic computer. The recited sensors in limitation (B) fare no better. As
the Examiner notes, and we agree, the sensors are coupled to the processor,
are not tied to any particular machine, and are described in the Specification
at a high level of generality, merely in terms of their function of data
gathering. Ans. 5.
In short, the recited components of a processor, memory, displays, and
sensors are insignificant extra-solution activity used in the process of
collecting, analyzing, and displaying information. Further, to the extent
limitations (A)−(E) are directed to contribute to an asset, such addition
merely links the judicial exception to the particular use of improving the
value of an asset. It is no different than limiting the abstract idea to a field
of use. To this point, Appellant argues that the claim is directed to an
improvement in a control system because it modifies “the physical
characteristics of the assets,” in an effort to place the claim in the realm of
technical improvements. Appeal Br. 9. We do not agree. See In re Marco
Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“the
abstract idea exception does not turn solely on whether the claimed
invention comprises physical versus mental steps”). As stated above, the
function of changing a parameter of a machine and issuing a command to
that effect is part of the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human
activity (fundamental business practice) implemented by increasing the net
production value via issuing an instruction accordingly. That the claim uses
some algorithm to issue the instruction or command that automatically
changes an operating parameter is but a computer automation of a human
activity of determining a course of action based on a desired goal (a mental
concept) and issuing a command to make the desired changes. There is no
particular technology recited in limitation (7), and asserting the change of
Appeal 2019-000610
Application 14/664,511
15
the “process control system” amounts to mere extra-solution activity or
reciting “apply it” as an instruction in a generic computer that affects a
“process control system” without limitation. Nor is the limitation directed to
any improvement in the technology itself.2
Appellant also argues that the claim is directed to providing a
technical solution to a technical problem of “suboptimal performance of
industrial operations.” Id. at 12. We do not agree. The claim is directed to
solving a business problem of increasing net production value of an asset.
As Appellant admits, the Specification describes “[the] conflict between
maximizing availability and maximizing utilization of assets in industrial
processes.” Id. The Specification describes the problem as a business
performance issue. Spec. ¶ 30. Indeed, the Specification refers to
maximizing productivity and minimizing downtime (maximizing asset
utilization) by using the asset performance metrics “from a business
performance perspective.” Id. ¶ 31. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that
the claims are directed to solving a technical problem. Rather, we view the
claim as a whole as more of a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(e) (discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450
U.S. 175, 188 (1981)); cf. ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d

2 Appellant generally argues that the claim is analogous to the claims in
Diehr, Thales Visionix, and CellzDirect, without any particularity. For
instance, Appellant argues that the claim “improves operation of industrial
processes.” Appeal Br. 11. The argument is insufficient to show any
parallels with the mentioned cases. Nevertheless, we do not find that the
claims are directed to an improvement of an industrial process. Rather, as
discussed below, the improvement, if at all, is in solving a business
performance issue. And references to improving an industrial process or an
asset merely link the judicial exception to the industrial environment, which
is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a practical application.
Appeal 2019-000610
Application 14/664,511
16
759, 771 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“And the fact that the electricity flow is modified
based on demand response principles does nothing to make this claim
directed to something other than the abstract idea,” as “[d]emand response is
itself an abstract concept --a familiar business choice to alter terms of
dealing to help match supply and demand.”).
Finally, we address Appellant’s argument that the Examiner “failed to
give this combination of specific claim elements its due weight, instead
conflating a desired result, i.e., the what of the invention, with how the
claimed method achieves that result.” Appeal Br. 14 (some of the original
emphasis omitted). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
Although faulting the Examiner for allegedly not conducting a “whole”
claim analysis, Appellant focuses on limitation (7) and how it recites
modifying asset operating parameters based on calculations made in other
claim limitations (in essence arguing that the combination of calculations
has been overlooked). As stated above, the combination of limitations
(1)−(7) are all directed to the abstract idea of mental processes and also to
certain methods of organizing human activity. Even if used for an industrial
process, the steps are still calculations that can be practically performed by
the human mind, except that the claim is implemented in a computer
operating in an industrial machine environment. These steps are also
performed by generic computer equipment to manage the interrelationship of
the maintenance, operations, and engineering group in managing the asset
performance. For instance, although the recited process determines the input
cost, output value, and net production value, it is the maintenance,
operations, and engineering teams that interact with this information to
determine how to increase the net production value, as described in the
Specification and as asserted by the Examiner. See Spec. ¶ 69 (“The
Appeal 2019-000610
Application 14/664,511
17
operations personnel may make changes to the process to increase the 74%,
decrease the $131,170, and increase the [$]489,040 going forward. This will
be accomplished by providing real-time feedback to maintenance, operations
and engineering on these three statistics and the history of each. This will
allow each of these groups to perform their duties in a manner that will
maximize the asset performance of the Crude Unit.”); see also Ans. 8−10
(Examiner explaining that the Specification describes data gathering and
conveying the information and notifications to personnel and that the
changes are effected by personnel). The Examiner’s analysis of the claim,
therefore, is not piecemeal, and does not ignore how the claimed limitations
are directed to achieving the result.
We conclude, based on our analysis above, that the additional
elements, alone or in combination, do not apply the abstract idea in a
meaningful way such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception. For these reasons, we conclude that
claim 1 does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical
application and therefore is directed to an abstract idea.
(c) Inventive Concept—Step 2B of the Guidance
Because we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is “directed to” an
abstract idea, we consider whether an additional element (or combination of
elements) adds a limitation that is not well-understood, routine, conventional
(“WURC”) activity in the field or whether the additional elements simply
append WURC activities previously known to the industry, specified at a
high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
23. The Examiner’s finding that an additional element (or combination of
elements) is a WURC activity must be supported with a factual
Appeal 2019-000610
Application 14/664,511
18
determination. Id. (citing MPEP § 2106.05(d), as modified by the
Berkheimer Memorandum3).
The Examiner points out that the additional limitations are computer
components as mere tools to perform the abstract idea and that the
Specification describes the additional limitations as well-known computing
systems. Ans. 4−5 (citing Spec. ¶ 75). We agree. The Specification states
that well-known computing systems, environments, and configurations are
suitable for use with aspects of the invention. Spec. ¶ 75 (identifying
“personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices,
multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes,
programmable consumer electronics, mobile telephones, network PCs,
minicomputers, mainframe computers, distributed computing environments
that include any of the above systems or devices, and the like.”). The
Examiner also points out that gathering of data by the sensors is a generic,
extra-solution activity, and that the sensors are not defined by technology in
the Specification, but rather are described by their function. Ans. 5. We
agree because the Specification just describes sensors in their ordinary,
conventional operation of gathering data. See Spec. ¶ 21 (“The sensors 106
monitor the process at various points and gather data from those points. The
sensors 106 send the data gathered to the controller 104.”). And finally, as
for the “human-machine interface comprising a visual display,” the
Examiner finds, and we agree, that such interfaces, without more, have been
determined by a court as insignificant extra-solution activity. Ans. 5 (citing
Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354−55); see also Spec. ¶ 29

3 “Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter
Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP,
Inc.),” April 19, 2018 (hereinafter “Berkheimer Memorandum”).
Appeal 2019-000610
Application 14/664,511
19
(describing the human-machine interfaces for the various stations as a
hardware interface or a software interface that can be accessed on a single
device where the “display engine 414 may provide different information and
a different appearance to each of the stations . . . based on what the users of
the stations may need.”). That is, the visual displays are not recited with any
particular functionality or technology that is unconventional or not well-
understood, and as such, they fall into the category that courts have
recognized as extra-solution activity that does not transform the abstract idea
into an inventive concept.
We therefore conclude that claim 1, considered as a whole, does not
include an inventive concept.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, we conclude that claim 1 is directed
to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, and does
not recite an inventive concept. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the same reasons, we also
sustain the § 101 rejection of independent claim 21 and dependent claims
2−7, 9, 10, 12−17, 19, 20, 22, and 23.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1−7, 9, 10,
12−17,
19−23
101 Eligibility 1−7, 9, 10,
12−17,
19−23

Appeal 2019-000610
Application 14/664,511
20
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED