Pugazendhi ASAIMUTHU

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2022

2021003290 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022)

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. 14/178,798 02/12/2014 Pugazendhi ASAIMUTHU WIZ-001-CON 1454 21884 7590 03/02/2022 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC 1451 Dolley Madison Blvd., Suite 210 McLean, VA 22101 EXAMINER PRATT, EHRIN LARMONT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3629 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2022 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte PUGAZENDHI ASAIMUTHU __________________ Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-17, 20, and 21, which are all the pending claims.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Pugazendhi Asaimuthu as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 18 and 19 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate to assessing skill levels of job candidates and storing the assessments and evaluations of skills in a database that clients can search to identify candidates for a position. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 6, 7, 11. Claims 1, 7, 12, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 recites a system as follows: 1. A web-based system for providing a list of candidates for an employment position, comprising: a server in communication with a web-based network; a memory in communication with said server; a software program provided in said memory for controlling the operation of said server; first information entered into said memory through said server in communication with the web-based network relating to at least one job candidate’s skill level and attributes; second information entered into said memory through said server in communication with the web-based system assessing the job candidate’s skill level, said second information including a first rating of at least one skill level of the job candidate and a real time recorded assessment session between the job candidate and an assessor, said first rating and said recorded assessment entered into said memory, said first rating and said recorded assessment generated irrespective of any employment position; and third information entered into said memory by an evaluator evaluating the skill level of the job candidate and said recorded assessment, said third information further including a second rating based upon the skill level of the job candidate and said recorded assessment, said software program configured to derive a third rating from said first and second ratings; and a means in communication with said server allowing a potential employer to conduct a search of said memory to generate a list of job candidates based upon at least one of said skill levels, said third rating and said recorded assessment. Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1-17, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 1-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lewis3 and Foster.4 Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lewis, Foster, and Beard.5 Claim 5, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lewis, Foster, and O’Malley.6 Claim 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lewis, Foster, and Bullock.7 Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Keusseyan8 and Hirsch.9 3 US 2002/0169631 A1, published November 14, 2002. 4 US 2010/0161503 A1, published June 24, 2010. 5 US 2008/0091686 A1, published April 17, 2008. 6 US 2011/0276507 A1, published November 10, 2011. 7 US 7,457,764 B1, published November 25, 2008. 8 US 2006/0224404 A1, published October 5, 2006. 9 US 2011/0208665 A1, published August 25, 2011. Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 4 ANALYSIS Eligibility of Claims 1-17, 20, and 21 Appellant does not argue the claims apart from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12-15. We use claim 1 as the representative claim. Claims 2-17, 20, and 21 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). The Examiner determines that claim 1 recites an abstract idea within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping by a series of steps that enter information about job skills and assessments and evaluations thereof, and allow a potential employer to search that information, which is a commercial interaction of marketing or sales activities, business relations, and managing relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Final Act. 8; Ans. 9-10. The Examiner determines that claiming a web-based system, a server in communication with a web-based network, a memory in communication with the server, a software program provided in the memory, and a means in communication with the server are instructions to apply the abstract idea by using generic computer components and generic functions. Final Act. 8-9 (citing Spec. ¶ 35). The Examiner further determines that these additional elements do not improve computer functioning, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, apply the abstract idea with a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the abstract idea in another meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a particular technological environment. Id. at 9-10. For similar reasons, the Examiner determines that using generic computer components to access content and services does not provide an inventive concept. Id. at 10-11. Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 5 Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. 35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concepts. Id. at 217. If they are, we consider the claim elements, individually and as an ordered combination, to determine if any additional elements provide an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to significantly more than a patent on the ineligible concept. Id. at 217-18. The USPTO has issued guidance for this framework. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”); MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 2106 (9th Ed. Rev. 10.2019, June 2020). To determine if a claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we evaluate whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas in the Revised Guidance (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.10 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55. 10 “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.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 6 If a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, we consider whether the claim (3) provides an inventive concept such as by adding a limitation beyond a judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field or (4) appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Statutory Subject Matter / Revised Guidance Step 1 We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites a system, which is a statutory category of a machine. See 35 U.S.C. § 101; Final Act. 7. Alice Step One / Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong One We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites a system to organize the activities and interactions of candidates seeking employment and clients seeking prospective employees by collecting information about candidates’ skill levels, assessing and evaluating the skill levels, and allowing potential employers to search for, and generate, a list of candidates as commercial interactions, business relations, and managing relationships or interactions of people. Final Act. 8; Ans. 9; see Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The focus of claim 1 is on collecting information about candidate skill levels, classifying that information through assessments and evaluations that produce ratings, and storing that information so a potential employer can search for and receive a list of job candidates based on skill levels, a rating, or an assessment. The application title, WEB-BASED RECRUITMENT SYSTEM, reflects this focus as does the preamble of claim 1, which recites “[a] web-based system for providing a list of candidates for an employment position.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 7 The invention is a “system for assessing the skill level of a candidate as well as providing a list of candidates and their assessments to an employer or client interested in hiring an individual for a position.” Spec. ¶ 1. Known systems advertise positions or use employment counsel to provide a list of candidates for a position to a client, who must review resumes and conduct interviews to assess a candidate’s skills as an expensive, time-consuming process. Id. ¶ 2. The claimed system produces a database of candidates that a client can search to find a candidate for a particular job. Id. ¶¶ 6, 11, 34. Job candidates enter their profile information relevant to the job hiring process. The first information includes skills and expertise of the candidate. Id. ¶ 14. Candidates specify skills to be assessed, and the system chooses one or more assessors and a schedule of times for the assessment. Id. ¶ 15. Telephone or internet-based interviews are scheduled and conducted to rate one or more candidate skills. Id. ¶¶ 15, 16. Candidates review assessments. If they do not dispute the assessment, the rating, assessor’s comments, and a recording of the assessment conference are sent to the system. Id. ¶ 16. If a candidate disputes the assessment, the candidate can choose an evaluator from a list, and the system arranges for the evaluator to review the initial conference between the candidate and assessor and the rating of the assessor. Id. ¶ 17. If the evaluator agrees with the candidate, the assessor’s rating is erased. Otherwise, the candidate is notified of the evaluator’s agreement with the assessor, and the candidate can remove the assessor’s rating. Id. In the latter instance, the evaluator can re-rate the candidate as a second rating. Id. ¶¶ 17-19. The system also provides “a rating range based upon the candidate’s assessment or evaluation as well as other criteria, such as work eligibility, health status and salary expectation.” Id. ¶ 11. Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 8 Consistent with this description, claim 1 recites a web-based system for providing a list of candidates for an employment position by collecting first information about a job candidate’s skill level and attributes, second information including a rating of the job candidate’s skill level(s) and a real time recorded assessment session between the job candidate and an assessor, and third information including a second rating of the skill level of the job candidate by an evaluator. See Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). The software program of the system analyzes the first and second rating to “derive a third rating.” Id. The system also includes a “means in communication with said server allowing a potential employer to conduct a search of said memory to generate a list of job candidates based upon at least one of said skill levels, said third rating and said recorded assessment.” Id. When recited at this level of generality, without any technical details, collecting and analyzing data and providing results of the analysis recite the abstract idea identified above and also performable as mental processes. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[S]electing information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.”); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner by attaching classification data is a method of organizing human activity); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting data, recognizing data in the collection, and storing the data recite steps humans always have performed to organize such data and activity). Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 9 Here, the system collects job candidate information and stores it in a system memory based on classification data such as skill level, attributes and ratings provided by an assessor and an evaluator so it can be searched by a potential employee to generate a list of job candidates based on at least one of the skill levels, a third rating derived from the first and second ratings, and the recorded assessment. Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). The fact that the third rating is “derive[d]” from first and second ratings without reciting any technical implementation details indicates that this function can be performed by any and all means to include as mental processes. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”) (citing TLI, 823 F.3d at 613). The Specification’s conclusory description of this third rating (see Spec. ¶ 11; see also Appeal Br. 5 (citing Spec. ¶ 11 and Fig. 1 as support for the third rating) confirms its abstract nature as a function that is performable as a mental process. Nor does the fact that the system is described as including a database alter the analysis. See Spec. ¶¶ 11, 17, 32; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (organizing records in a database with an index of tags and metafiles is a longstanding practice that existed well before the advent of computers and the Internet); see also BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, 899 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (using historical usage information to input data into a database is a fundamental, long-prevalent practice and a well-established method of organizing activity). Here, claim 1 stores candidate data in a memory by skill levels, ratings, and assessments so it can be searched by an employer. Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 10 Appellant argues that claim 1 includes a server in communication with a web-based network, a memory in communication with the server, and a software program provided in the memory for controlling operation of the server to enter first, second, and third information into the memory, derive a third rating, and allow an employer to search the memory to generate a list of job candidates via a communication means. Appeal Br. 12-13. Appellant asserts that this system is not abstract because it “constitutes a real world system and method for providing a list of candidates for an employment position” so “there is nothing abstract about the claimed system and method, and the pending claims are entitled to patent protection.” Id. at 13. Similar systems and methods that collect and analyze data of real world systems and report results of the analysis have been held to be abstract ideas. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1351-52, 1355 (detecting events on an interconnected electric power grid in real time and analyzing events recited mental processes where “a large portion of the lengthy claims is devoted to enumerating types of information and information sources available within the power-grid environment”); TLI, 823 F.3d at 609-11 (using a digital pick up unit in a telephone unit to record and store images, transmit image data and classification information to a server that stores the digital images using the classification information carries out the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner with a telephone unit and a server that merely provide a generic environment for the concept); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (claims were drawn to the basic concept of data recognition and storage implemented with a computer and a scanner). Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 recites the abstract idea identified above. Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 11 Alice Step One / Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong Two: We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. We agree with the Examiner that additional elements of a web-based system, a server in communication with the system, a memory in communication with the server, a software program in the memory for controlling operation of the server, and a means in communication with the server do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are generic computer components used as tools/instructions to apply the abstract idea. Final Act. 8-9; Ans. 11-12. They do not improve functioning of computers or other technology. They do not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition. They do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claims. They do not effect a transformation or a reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. They do not apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond merely linking its use to a particular technological environment. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (discussing these factors as indicative of additional elements that integrate an abstract idea). The Specification describes these elements generically without any indication that Appellant invented any of these components or improved any of their functions. The web-based computer system uses one or more server processors 182 for manipulating information into the system. Spec. ¶ 30. Information is entered using internet 194 and typical network connections and related hardware and software infrastructure. Id. Information is stored in storage facilities such as primary storage 184 and secondary storage 186 after being processed by processors 182. Id. ¶¶ 30, 31, Fig. 6. Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 12 The Specification does not describe a “means in communication with said server” beyond indicating that the client has the ability to access generic website 196 “for the purpose of conducting a candidate search and selection process for a particular employment position.” Id. ¶ 34; see also Appeal Br. 5-6 (citing Spec. ¶ 34 as support for the means in communication). This description confirms Appellant has not invented these elements or improved their capabilities. Indeed, “the program, processes or methods described herein are not related or limited to any particular type of computer apparatus” and “[v]arious types of general purpose or specialized computer apparatuses may be used with or perform operations in accordance with the teachings of the present invention.” Id. ¶ 35. However, a generic computer implementation is not sufficient to make an abstract idea patent-eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea ‘while adding the words “apply it”’ is not enough for patent eligibility.”) (citation omitted); BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286 (“We have consistently held, however, that claims are not saved from abstraction merely because they recite components more specific than a generic computer.”); TLI, 823 F.3d at 611 (“[N]ot every claim that recites concrete, tangible components escapes the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry”; the specification makes clear that the physical components “merely provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea.”); see also Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claiming a database, a user profile, and a communication medium recited generic computer elements that performed generic computer tasks that did not make the abstract idea patent-eligible). Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 13 Appellant argues that the system includes elements that amount to practical applications and impose meaningful limits on the invention such as: (1) first information entered into said memory through said server in communication with the web-based network relating to at least one job candidate’s skill level and attributes; (2) second information including a first rating of at least one skill level of the job candidate and a real time recorded assessment session between the job candidate and an assessor; (3) said first rating and said recorded assessment entered into said memory, said first rating and said recorded assessment generated irrespective of any employment position; (4) third information including a second rating based upon the skill level of the job candidate and said recorded assessment, said software program configured to derive a third rating from said first and second ratings; and (5) means in communication with said server allowing a potential employer to conduct a search of said memory to generate a list of job candidates based upon at least one of said skill levels, said third rating and said recorded assessment. Appeal Br. 13-14. Appellant argues that the system overcomes the shortcomings of currently existing computer-based recruiting systems that fail to provide a mechanism for an overall assessment of the skills of a job candidate. Id. at 14. Appellant asserts that the method and system develop a complete database of candidates for the purpose of allowing an employer to evaluate candidates fully for a particular job position and present meaningful limitations for the communication of information relating to a job candidate’s skill level and attributes, ratings, and assessments among a server, memory, candidates, assessors, and employers in a series of highly specific limitations. Id. We are not persuaded for the following reasons. Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 14 The features cited by Appellant are largely features of the abstract idea identified under Prong One. They are not additional elements. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.24 (“additional elements” are claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in a claim beyond the identified judicial exception); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (a claim that recites an abstract idea must include additional features to ensure that it does not monopolize the abstract idea). A wholly generic computer implementation is not the sort of additional feature that provides practical assurance that the process does not monopolize the idea itself. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Even if we consider these features as additional elements, they do not improve the functioning of computers or other technology. “Software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can, and . . . the improvements can be accomplished through either route.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, “to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336-39). Here, the web-based system uses generic computer components to collect and organize information. “Information as such is an intangible.” Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353 (“Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas.”). The candidate skill levels, attributes, recorded assessments, and ratings are collected by result-based functions using the additional elements as tools. Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 15 “Merely claiming ‘those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance,’ does not make a claim eligible at step one.” Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation omitted); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (to avoid being abstract, a claim must have the specificity to transform it from one claiming only a result to one that claims a way of achieving the result); Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (content data update instructions to enable updating of displayed information are recited at the broadest, functional level, without explaining how that function is accomplished, let alone providing a technical means for performing that function; thus, they do not recite a technological improvement for performing those functions but instead recite only generic information acquisition and organization steps that do not convert the abstract idea into a particular way to carry out that concept); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1356 (the result-focused, functional nature of the claim language is a frequent feature of claims that are patent-ineligible); see Ans. 11-12. Storing information in a generic memory that can be searched by a potential employer to generate a list of job candidates based on skill levels, a third rating, and recorded assessment does not integrate the claim. See BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286-87 (a database structure is a generic environment in which to perform the method of posting parameterized items as was common and reciting a database structure slightly more detailed than a generic database does not save the claims at step one); Erie, 850 F.3d at 1327 (organizing and locating information in a database by using an index of tags and metafiles is longstanding conduct that existed well before computers and the Internet). Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 16 Here, the system automates and organizes the job search process for employers. Cf. Spec. ¶ 2 (clients receive a list of candidates for a position from an employment counselor in traditional job searches; they review the resumes and interview candidates to assess their skills). Merely automating processes that are performed by humans does not improve computers. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[M]ere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”); NetSoc, LLC v. Match Grp., LLC, 838 F. App’x 544, 548 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (automatically establishing a social network to allow humans to exchange information and form relationships is a method of organizing human activity); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (“Using a computer to create and maintain ‘shadow’ accounts amounts to electronic recordkeeping-one of the most basic functions of a computer.”); Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“But the need to perform tasks automatically is not a unique technical problem.”). Indeed, assessors and evaluators still interview and rate candidates and review assessments. Even if the Specification described technical details for this process, they are not claimed. See Ericsson, 955 F.3d at 1325 (“[T]he specification may be ‘helpful in illuminating what a claim is directed to . . . [but] the specification must always yield to the claim language’ when identifying the ‘true focus of a claim.’”) (citation omitted); Accenture Glob. Servs. GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[T]he complexity of the implementing software or the level of detail in the specification does not transform a claim reciting only an abstract concept into a patent-eligible system or method.”). Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 17 Appellant describes traditional job searches as expensive and time- consuming so computers, databases, and the internet are used to shorten or streamline the process. Spec. ¶¶ 2-5. Yet, increased speed or accuracy from a generic computer implementation is not sufficient. Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1365 (“The only improvements identified in the specification are generic speed and efficiency improvements inherent in applying the use of a computer to any task. . . . This is not an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself.”); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“As we have held, the use of the Internet is not sufficient to save otherwise abstract claims from ineligibility under § 101.”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Using a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.”). Even if skills are rated without regard to a job (see Spec. ¶ 11), that concept is an abstract idea as claimed. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. . . . The Board’s slight revision of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the patentability analysis.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”). Thus, we determine that claim 1 lacks additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea identified under Prong One. Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 18 Alice, Step Two and Revised Guidance Step 2B: We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements that, when considered individually, or as an ordered combination, provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18. This step is satisfied when the limitations involve more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities known in the industry. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Individually, the additional elements are conventional. The server is a generic computer component that communicates with a generic web-based network and a memory to enter data in the memory, and the communication means allows potential employers to communicate with the server. These components and functions are known and conventional. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”); Erie, 850 F.3d at 1329 (“[T]he remaining limitations recite routine computer functions, such as sending and receiving information to execute the database search, e.g., receiving a request for information and delivering records.”); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive.”); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (claiming the Internet as a source of data does not tie the claims to a particular machine or transform them). As discussed under Prong Two above, Appellant does not purport to have invented or improved any of these components or their functions. A generic software program simply implements the abstract idea. Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 19 As an ordered combination, the limitations recite no more than when they are considered individually. “If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.” BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290-91. “It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” Id. at 1290; see also Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. . . . We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are ‘insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application’ of an abstract idea.”); In re Jobin, 811 F. App’x 633, 637-38 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Despite its expansive language and its recitation of servers and databases, claim 221 . . . is, at bottom, directed to the collection, organization, grouping, and storage of data using techniques such as conducting a survey or crowdsourcing. As the Board correctly concluded, this claim is directed to a method of organizing human activity-a hallmark of claims directed to abstract ideas.”; the “online system,” “server,” “data structure,” and “user device” recite generic technology for implementing the abstract idea without improving computer capabilities and individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept). Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-17, 20, and 21 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 20 Written Description of Claims 1-17 and 20 The Examiner interprets “means in communication” in claims 1 and 13 as a means-plus-function limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Final Act. 4, 7. The Examiner determines that the Specification does not describe corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function or clearly link any structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. Id. at 7; see also id. at 4-5 (discussing the absence of a written description for this limitation as rendering the claim indefinite). Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s interpretation of “means in communication” as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Instead, Appellant argues that the means in communication “is intended to refer to conventional computer apparatuses providing a potential employer with the ability to conduct a search so as to generate a list of job candidates based upon specific criterial.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant cites the description in paragraph 35 of the Specification that “the program, processes or methods described herein are not related or limited to any particular type of computer apparatus. Various types of general purpose or specialized computer apparatuses may be used with or perform operations in accordance with the teachings of the present invention.” Id. Appellant also asserts that such non-specialized functions known by skilled artisans do not require more than the disclosure of a general purpose computer. Id. at 11. A means-plus-function limitation that recites a function that can be achieved by a general purpose computer without special programming does not require a disclosure of more structure than a general purpose processor that performs the function. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Reply Br. 2-3. Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 21 The problem with Appellant’s argument is that paragraph 35 does not identify any particular structure as being used to provide communications between a client and the server of the web-based system. It is not clear if a general purpose computer, a special purpose computer, and/or some other apparatus is used to provide a means in communication function to “allow[] a potential employer to conduct a search of said memory to generate a list of job candidates based upon at least one of said skill levels, said third rating and said recorded assessment” as recited in claims 1 and 13. See Appeal Br. 24, 28 (Claims App.). The summary of the claimed subject matter in the Appeal Brief cites paragraph 34 of the Specification as support for this limitation. See Appeal Br. 5-6. However, paragraph 34 states only that: [T]the assessment rating and evaluation rating will be entered into the system at Step 204. The client would then have the ability to access the website 196 for the purpose of conducting a candidate search and selection process for a particular employment position. The client would have the ability of entering various criteria in the website to generate a list of candidates. Spec. ¶ 34. We find no description of a “means in communication” or of a general purpose computer or any other device used to perform the “means in communication” with the server to allow a client to search the memory. Figure 7 illustrates website 196 connecting a client to a “Candidate search and selection process” of “Candidate search and selection processing” 202. No communication element is illustrated or described. Spec. ¶¶ 32-34. Claim 1 already recites a web-based system of “a server in communication with a web-based network.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). Thus, a “means in communication” is claimed in addition to this web-based network. Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 22 Appellant’s Figure 6 illustrates servers 182 connected to internet 194 by network 190. The Specification indicates “[a] typical network connection and related hardware and software infrastructure 190 would be provided between the internet and the processors 182.” Spec. ¶ 30. No identification is made of a particular structure being tied to a “means in communication.” The generic description that “[v]arious types of general purpose or specialized computer apparatuses may be used with or perform operations in accordance with the teachings of the present invention” in paragraph 35 of the Specification does not tie a general purpose or special purpose computer to a “means in communication” with the server. Nor is there any description of a “means in communication” to which such computers could be linked to allow a potential employer to conduct a search of the memory of a server. Thus, we find no description of a device/structure linked to this function. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 13 for lack of a written description of the “means in communication” and claims 2-6, which depend from claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 7-12, and 14-20 on this basis as those claims do not include this limitation. Indefiniteness of Claims 1-17 and 20 The Examiner determines that the lack of a written description of a “means in communication” under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, renders claims 1 and 13 indefinite. Final Act. 4-5. Appellant argues that a “means in communication” is intended to refer to conventional computer apparatuses providing a potential employer with the ability to conduct a search so as to generate a list of job candidates based upon specific criteria. Appeal Br. 10. As discussed above, the written description does not clearly identify any structure that corresponds to the claimed “means in communication.” Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 23 This lack of a written description of a “means in communication” leaves the meaning and scope of this limitation unclear and indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(b) and 112(f). Because a “means in communication” is not described, it is unclear how it allows an employer to search the memory. Nor is any particular structure linked to a “means in communication” used by a potential employer to search a database of candidates. See Spec. ¶¶ 30- 35; Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 59 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2181(II)(A). The lack of any written description leaves a skilled artisan to speculate as to whether the corresponding structure is a general purpose computer, a special purpose computer, “a typical network connection,” “the ability to access the website 196 for the purpose of conducting a candidate search,” and/or some undisclosed structure. See Spec. ¶¶ 30-34. Without a description of a “means in communication” and its corresponding structure, the scope and meaning of this term is unclear. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 13 as indefinite, and claims 2-6, which depend from claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 7-12, and 14-20 on this basis as those claims do not include this limitation. Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11-15 Rejected Over Lewis and Foster Independent claims 1 and 12 recite a system that obtains a first rating of a job candidate based upon an assessment with “said first rating and said recorded assessment generated irrespective of any employment position.” Independent claim 7 recites “said first rating determined irrespective of any employment opportunity.” Appeal Br. 24, 26, 28 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 24 Regarding claims 1, 7, and 12, the Examiner finds that Lewis teaches a web-based system substantially as claimed except for second information that includes a first rating and recorded assessment of a skill level generated irrespective of any employment position, third information with a second rating of a skill level of a job candidate by an evaluator, a software program configured to derive a third rating from the first and second ratings, and a means in communication with the server. The Examiner cites Foster to teach these elements. Final Act. 12-14. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify Lewis to include these features of Foster to add an evaluator’s analysis to assist a hiring manager in making a final hiring decision for a pool of candidates. Id. at 14. Appellant argues persuasively that the claims require the first rating and the recorded assessment to be generated irrespective of any employment positions, whereas Foster presents standard questions to determine which candidate should be hired for an employment position. Appeal Br. 17. Foster teaches a system and method for online employment recruiting and evaluation. Foster ¶ 2. A potential employee reviews a job posting and completes online questionnaires relating to the job to provide an employer with information about their experience, to respond to job-related questions specified by the employer, and to upload documents and examples of work product. Id. ¶ 37. Based on questionnaire responses, the employer selects desired candidates to narrow down the pool of potential employees. Id. ¶ 38. Candidates are scheduled for a telephone interview with an interviewer who is provided with a guidance document to use in conducting the interview. Id. ¶ 39. The document can include pre-defined questions specified by the employer and standard questions asked of all candidates for the job. Id. Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 25 The pre-defined questions specified by the employer for a candidate and the standard questions pertain to a particular job listing of the employer. Therefore, any rating or recorded assessment resulting from the interview is for that job listing. They are not “generated irrespective of any employment position” as claimed. The interview and the assessment also are generated for a particular job listing for which a candidate has applied and completed a questionnaire. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 12 or their respective dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 8, and 11-15. Claims 4 and 16 Rejected Over Lewis, Foster, and Beard The Examiner’s reliance on Beard to teach a web-based network does not cure the deficiencies of Lewis and Foster as to claims 1 and 12 from which these claims depend. See Final Act. 16-17; Appeal Br. 19. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims. Claims 5, 9, and 17 Rejected Over Lewis, Foster, and O’Malley The Examiner’s reliance on O’Malley to teach features of claims 5, 9, and 17 does not cure the deficiencies of Lewis and Foster as to claims 1, 7, and 12 from which these claims dependent. See Final Act. 17-18; Appeal Br. 20. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims. Claims 10 and 20 Rejected Over Lewis, Foster, and Bullock The Examiner’s reliance on Bullock teach features of claims 10 and 20 does not cure the deficiencies of Lewis and Foster as to claims 7 and 12 from which these claims dependent. See Final Act. 17-18; Appeal Br. 20. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims. Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 26 Claim 21 Rejected Over Keusseyan and Hirsch The Examiner finds that Keusseyan teaches a website, substantially as claimed, except for “a web page showing ratings of assessors based upon fourth information entered into the memory by an evaluator evaluating the recorded assessment session.” Final Act. 20-21. The Examiner finds that Hirsch teaches this feature as a web page showing ratings of assessors based on fourth information entered into the memory by an evaluator evaluating the recorded assessment session. Id. (citing Hirsch ¶¶ 30, 65, 69, 84). Appellant argues that Hirsch does not teach or suggest the provision of ratings of candidate skills by assessors based on fourth information that is entered into the memory by an evaluator evaluating the recorded assessment session. Appeal Br. 22. Appellant asserts that the sections referenced by the Examiner in Hirsch broadly reference the fact that it might be possible to gather additional information from the system but not assessor ratings as claimed in claim 21. Id. We disagree. According to the Specification, an assessor interviews a candidate and rates the candidate based on one or more skills. Spec. ¶ 16. If the candidate disputes the rating, the candidate can choose an evaluator to review the initial conference between the candidate and the assessor and the rating of the assessor. Id. ¶ 17. The evaluator provides an evaluation that may or may not concur with the candidate’s disputed claim. Id. ¶¶ 17, 18. If the evaluator agrees with the candidate’s disputed claim, the assessor’s rating is erased and the evaluator can re-rate the candidate and provide the candidate with the rating. Id. ¶¶ 18, 19; see also id. ¶ 32; Appeal Br. 7-8 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 17, 23, 33 as support for this claimed subject matter). We interpret this feature as an evaluator evaluating a recorded assessment session. Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 27 Hirsch teaches a system that processes a large amount of responder and client information so that a responder and client can be assessed in an efficient manner. Hirsch ¶ 30. Specifically, information from a client’s interview (or interviews) may be collected, computed and evaluated (e.g., replayed) to generate additional interviews with a responder. Id. ¶ 65. For example, the client can replay a recorded phone interview and then follow up with additional interviews with the responder. Id. One of more portions of this data that is collected from candidates for analysis can be sent to one or more evaluators for evaluation. Id. ¶ 69. The evaluations can include individual evaluators or groups of evaluators who evaluate the client and/or respondent information by voting, ranking, and scoring it. Id. ¶ 84. Results can be shared with the client and/or responder, a qualifications module can be configured to trigger additional actions such as gathering additional data through follow-up interviews, tests, and/or surveys, and this data can be sent through the same modules to compute an iterative result. Id. ¶ 86. We agree with the Examiner that Hirsch thus teaches and suggests using evaluators to evaluate recorded interviews between clients and responders and to provide ratings for such sessions to include in the system database for later analysis or display in response to searches. Final Act. 20-21; Ans. 20-21. Keusseyan already teaches a website and system that show the other types of claimed information. Appellant has not shown that these findings of the Examiner are in error. See Final Act. 19-20; Ans. 19-20; Appeal Br. 21-23. The Examiner relies on Hirsch to show the ratings of assessors based on fourth information as recited in claim 21. Final Act. 20-21. Appeal 2021-003290 Application 14/178,798 28 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-17, 20, 21 101 Eligibility 1-17, 20, 21 1-17, 20 112 Written Description 1-6, 13 7-12, 14-17, 20 1-17, 20 112 Indefiniteness 1-6, 13 7-12, 14-17, 20 1-3, 6-8, 11-15 103 Lewis, Foster 1-3, 6-8, 11- 15 4, 16 103 Lewis, Foster, Beard 4, 16 5, 9, 17 103 Lewis, Foster, O’Malley 5, 9, 17 10, 20 103 Lewis, Foster, Bullock 10, 20 21 103 Keusseyan, Hirsch 21 Overall Outcome 1-17, 20, 21 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