Robert Dwyer et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 12, 2021

2021001681 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/035,247 02/25/2011 Robert Dwyer 002328.0891 2423
5073 7590 10/12/2021
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75201
EXAMINER
LIU, CHIA-YI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
PTOmail1@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT DWYER and KURT MANSFIELD
____________

Appeal 2021–001681
Application 13/035,247
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2021-001681
Application 13/035,247

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Robert Dwyer and Kurt Mansfield (Appellant2) seek review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1, 4–9, 11–13, 16–21, 23, and
24, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a form of variable annuity financial product
illustrations. Specification 1:15–17.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 13, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
13. A method for illustrating a variable annuity financial
product, comprising the steps of:
[1] generating,
by a computer processor of at least one server,
at least one user interface screen at a local computer
operated by a user;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed September 29, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed January
6, 2021), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 6, 2020),
and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed January 29, 2020).
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 The
Prudential Insurance Company of America (Appeal Br. 2).

Appeal 2021-001681
Application 13/035,247

3

[2] receiving
user–specified information about a variable annuity
financial product to be illustrated
and
a desired start date for a financial illustration,
using the at least one user interface screen;
[3] receiving,
by the server,
a specification
by a user of a plurality of portfolios associated
with the variable annuity financial product to be
included in the financial illustration using the at
least one user interface screen;
[4] transmitting,
by the server,
the information about the variable annuity financial
product
and
the desired start date
from the local computer system to an illustration
server in communication with the local computer
system;
[5] electronically obtaining,
by the computer processor,
past performance data
on a daily basis relating to at least one portfolio of
the plurality of portfolios associated with the
variable annuity financial product;

Appeal 2021-001681
Application 13/035,247

4

[6] determining,
by the computer processor,
a fee associated with the at least one portfolio;
[7] calculating,
by the computer processor,
based at least in part upon the past performance
data and the fee,
an actual performance
of the variable annuity financial product
during a user–defined time period which extends
from the desired start date to an end date using the
illustration server to produce a first illustration for
the variable annuity financial product,
the first illustration illustrating the actual
performance of the variable annuity financial
product during the user–defined time period;
[8] modeling,
by the computer processor,
based at least in part upon the past performance
data and a living benefit associated with the
variable annuity financial product during the user–
defined time period,
the variable annuity financial product
to produce a second illustration for the variable
annuity financial product,
the second illustration illustrating the performance
of the variable annuity financial product during the
user–defined time period;

Appeal 2021-001681
Application 13/035,247

5

[9] modeling,
by the computer processor,
based at least in part upon the past performance
data and a guaranteed minimum return value for
the variable annuity financial product during the
user–defined time period,
the variable annuity financial product
to produce a third illustration for the variable
annuity financial product,
the third illustration illustrating the performance of
the variable annuity financial product during the
user–defined time period;
[10] receiving,
at the server,
an indication
that the user has specified that the illustration
report indicate the performance of the variable
annuity financial product based upon the variable
annuity financial product being subject to the
living benefit and the performance of the variable
annuity financial product based upon the variable
annuity financial product being subject to the
guaranteed minimum return value;
[11] generating,
by the computer processor,
in response to the indication,
the illustration report comprising the first, second, and
third illustrations;
[12] transmitting,
by the server,
the illustration report to the local computer system;
and
Appeal 2021-001681
Application 13/035,247

6

[13] displaying the report to the user on the local computer
system
wherein communications between the server and the
local computer are secured by a firewall.
Claims 1, 4–9, 11–13, 16–21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly
more.
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
ANALYSIS
STEP 13
Claim 13, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those
patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is
there in the claims before us? To answer that question, . . .
consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as an
ordered combination” to determine whether the additional
elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-

3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2021-001681
Application 13/035,247

7

eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis as a search for an “‘inventive concept’”—i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure
that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a
patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (alterations in
original) (citations omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must
first determine what the claims are directed to. This begins by determining
whether the claims recite one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a
natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a
judicial exception, determining whether the claims at issue are directed to
the recited judicial exception, or whether the recited judicial exception is
integrated into a practical application of that exception, i.e., that the claims
“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. If the claims are directed to a judicial
exception, then finally determining whether the claims provide an inventive
concept because the additional elements recited in the claims provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 13 recites generating a user interface screen, receiving and
transmitting information, obtaining data, determining fee data, calculating
performance data, modeling a financial product, and receiving, generating,
transmitting, and displaying information. Generating an interface screen is
Appeal 2021-001681
Application 13/035,247

8

receiving and displaying data representing such a screen. Obtaining data is
receiving data. Determining fees, calculating performance, and modeling
financial products are rudimentary data analysis. Thus, claim 13 recites
generating, receiving, displaying, transmitting, and analyzing data. None of
the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these
steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means.
From this we see that claim 13 does not recite the judicial exceptions
of either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent ineligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts,4 (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity,5 and (3) mental processes.6 Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial
or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 13 recites the concept of
managing commercial financial products. Specifically, claim 13 recites
operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to produce

4 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2021-001681
Application 13/035,247

9

reports showing model results of financial products based on provided
parameters and history data. The advice to produce reports showing model
results of financial products based on provided parameters and history data
involves modeling a variable annuity financial product, which is an
economic act, and determining a fee, which is an act ordinarily performed in
the stream of commerce. For example, claim 13 recites “modeling . . . the
variable annuity financial product,” which is an activity that would take
place whenever one is managing such products. Similarly, claim 1 recites
“determining . . . a fee,” which is also characteristic of selling financial
products.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to determining a
fee, calculating performance of annuity financial product and producing
illustrations for the annuity financial product. Final Act. 2. The preamble to
claim 13 recites that it is a method for illustrating a variable annuity
financial product. The steps in claim 13 result in managing commercial
financial products by producing reports showing model results of financial
products based on provided parameters and history data absent any
technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 2, 3, 5, and 10 recite
receiving data. Limitations 1, 4, 6–9, and 11–13 recite generic and
conventional generating, receiving, displaying, transmitting, and analyzing
of financial data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these
results. The limitations thus recite advice for producing reports showing
model results of financial products based on provided parameters and history
data. To advocate producing reports showing model results of financial
Appeal 2021-001681
Application 13/035,247

10

products based on provided parameters and history data is conceptual advice
for results desired and not technological operations.
The Specification at 1:15–17 describes the invention as relating to
variable annuity financial product illustrations. Thus, all this intrinsic
evidence shows that claim 13 recites managing commercial financial
products. This is consistent with the Examiner’s determination.
This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a
certain method of organizing human activity because managing commercial
financial products is organizing commercial activity. The concept of
managing commercial financial products by producing reports showing
model results of financial products based on provided parameters and history
data is one idea for informing prospective customers. The steps recited in
claim 13 are part of how this might conceptually be premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. See Bilski above.
Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of generating, receiving,
displaying, transmitting, and analyzing data mimic human thought processes
of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and
pencil, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind.
See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir.
2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94
(Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 13, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior
cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data generation,
reception, display, transmission, and analysis and does not recite an
improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v.
Appeal 2021-001681
Application 13/035,247

11

Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(finding claims not abstract because they “focused on a specific asserted
improvement in computer animation”). As such, claim 13 recites
generating, receiving, displaying, transmitting, and analyzing data, and not a
technological implementation or application of that idea.
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 13 recites
managing commercial financial products by producing reports showing
model results of financial products based on provided parameters and history
data, which is a commercial and legal interaction, one of certain methods of
organizing human activity identified in the Revised Guidance, and, thus, an
abstract idea.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 13 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application.7
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some
level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply
laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Thus, an
invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it
involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of such
concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said, remain
eligible for patent protection.
Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, we must
distinguish between patents that claim the “ ‘buildin[g]

7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2021-001681
Application 13/035,247

12

block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those that integrate the
building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted) (alterations in original).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Steps 2, 3, 5, and 10 are pure data
gathering steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter
this. Steps 1 and 4 recite basic conventional data operations such as
generating, updating, and storing data. Steps 11–13 are insignificant post
solution activity, such as storing, transmitting, or displaying the results.
Steps 6–9 recite generic computer processing expressed in terms of results
desired by any and all possible means and so present no more than
conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data
are interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process physically
enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically
achieves those results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 13 simply recites the concept of
managing commercial financial products by producing reports showing
model results of financial products based on provided parameters and history
data as performed by a generic computer. This is no more than conceptual
advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic computer
processes necessary to process those parameters, and does not recite any
particular implementation.
Claim 13 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The 25+ pages of specification only spell out
Appeal 2021-001681
Application 13/035,247

13

different generic equipment8 and parameters that might be applied using this
concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail
based on the concept of managing commercial financial products by
producing reports showing model results of financial products based on
provided parameters and history data under different scenarios. They do not
describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions.
Instead, claim 13 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an
instruction to apply managing commercial financial products by producing
reports showing model results of financial products based on provided
parameters and history data using some unspecified, generic computer.
Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a
patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.
None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of
a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,
applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or
prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial
exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation
or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or
uses 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.

8 The Specification describes using any desired local computer system, such
as a desktop computer, portable computer (e.g., laptop, tablet computer,
PDA, etc.), and/or smart phone. Spec. 10:21–23.
Appeal 2021-001681
Application 13/035,247

14

We conclude that claim 13 is directed to achieving the result of
managing commercial financial products by advising one to produce reports
showing model results of financial products based on provided parameters
and history data, as distinguished from a technological improvement for
achieving or applying that result. This amounts to commercial or legal
interactions, which fall within certain methods of organizing human activity
that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 13 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
the 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. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract idea
“on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern
that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of
computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not
generally the sort of “additional feature[e]” that provides any
“practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted) (alterations in original).
Appeal 2021-001681
Application 13/035,247

15

“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a
generic computer. They do not.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for generating, receiving, displaying, transmitting, and analyzing
data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic
functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are generic,
routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their
conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing
Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible
narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . .
. those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without
special programming”). None of these activities is used in some
unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result.
Appellant does not contend it invented any of these activities. In short, each
step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic
computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even if a process of
collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a
particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis
other than abstract.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 13 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data generation-reception-
Appeal 2021-001681
Application 13/035,247

16

display-transmission-analysis is equally generic and conventional. See
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing
access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings,
LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and
transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications,
LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing,
controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary
and conventional.
We conclude that claim 13 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 13 is representative. The remaining method claims merely
describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical
application of that concept.
As to the structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer
components configured to implement the same idea. This Court
has long “warn[ed] ... against” interpreting § 101“in ways that
make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the draftsman’s art.’
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (citations omitted) (alterations in original). As a
corollary, the claims are not directed to any particular machine.
Appeal 2021-001681
Application 13/035,247

17

LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and
legal interaction of managing commercial financial products by advising one
to produce reports showing model results of financial products based on
provided parameters and history data, without significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 2–5 and Answer 6–7 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
the claimed features provide technical improvements over
existing graphical user interfaces at least because: (1) they enable
real time investigation of an annuity under hypothetical scenarios
(as opposed to merely displaying the historical performance of
an annuity, a function to which existing user interfaces were
limited); and (2) they conserve computational resources, by
enabling a user computer system to directly communicate with
the illustration server (as opposed to relying on intermediate
communications to/from an investment advisor).
Reply Br. 2. The concept of real time investigation is just that, a concept.
Real time investigation of financial models is at least as generic and
conventional as spreadsheet software dating back to VisiCalc and Ferox
(both used by the author for financial analysis and modelling) in the early
1980’s. No technological improvements for such real time investigation are
Appeal 2021-001681
Application 13/035,247

18

recited. Conservation of resources is also a concept. Again, no
technological implementation details are recited.
Appellant further argues that the asserted claims are akin to the
claims found patent eligible in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG
Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Reply Br. 2–3. But the
Court in Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. IBG LLC addressed
Appellant’s Core Wireless argument.
Relying principally on Core Wireless . . ., TT argues the claimed
invention provides an improvement in the way a computer
operates. We do not agree. The claims of the ’999 patent do not
improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more
efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Instead, they
recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic information that
assists traders in processing information more quickly.
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
(citations omitted). The instant claims do not improve the functioning of the
computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological
problem. Instead, they recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic
information that assists users in processing information more quickly.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
the claimed firewall does not merely link any alleged abstract
idea to a technological environment (e.g., an electronic, network-
based environment). Rather, by protecting the claimed
illustration server from viruses and other unwanted threats that it
may otherwise be exposed to as a result of direct communication
with any external systems, the claimed firewall enables the direct
communication between the claimed user computer system and
the claimed illustration server that results in the technical
improvement of increased efficiency.
Appeal 2021-001681
Application 13/035,247

19

Reply Br. 3. Merely reciting generic computer modules and equipment that
do no more than provide the function they are designed for does not confer
eligibility.
The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer
components recited in the claims—such as a database, user
terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole,
into “significantly more” than a claim to the abstract idea itself.
“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.”
Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (citations omitted).
Appellant next contends the claims are analogous to those in Amdocs
(Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appellants contend that the claims in Amdocs were related to generic
components operating in an unconventional manner to achieve an
improvement in computer functionality. Reply Br. 4–5. This is not quite
accurate. The court’s analysis turned heavily on a prior construction.
Claim 1 requires “computer code for using the accounting
information with which the first network accounting record is
correlated to enhance the first network accounting record.” In
Amdocs I, we construed “enhance” as being dependent upon the
invention’s distributed architecture. We construed “enhance” as
meaning “to apply a number of field enhancements in a
distributed fashion.” We took care to note how the district court
explained that “[i]n this context, ‘distributed’ means that the
network usage records are processed close to their sources before
being transmitted to a centralized manager.” And we specifically
approved of the district court’s “reading the ‘in a distributed
fashion’ and the ‘close to the source’ of network information
requirements into the term ‘enhance.’”
Appeal 2021-001681
Application 13/035,247

20

Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1300 (citations omitted). Thus, the court read “to apply
a number of field enhancements in a distributed fashion” into “using the
accounting information with which the first network accounting record is
correlated to enhance the first network accounting record.” Id. This is
substantially more than merely being related to some unconventional manner
of operation.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1, 4–9, 11–13, 16–21, 23, and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly
more is proper.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1, 4–9, 11–13, 16–21, 23, and 24 is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–9, 11–13,
16–21, 23, 24
101 Eligibility 1, 4–9, 11–13,
16–21, 23, 24

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED