Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Naotaka Takeshita

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 3, 2019

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Naotaka Takeshita

Patent Trials and Appeals Board Sep 3, 2019

13727777 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 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. 13/727,777 12/27/2012 Naotaka Takeshita SONYJP 3.0-3064 4539 15028 7590 09/03/2019 SONYJP Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP 600 South Ave West Westfield, NJ 07090 EXAMINER ROBINSON, KITO R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3695 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/03/2019 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): eOfficeAction@ldlkm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte NAOTAKA TAKESHITA ____________ Appeal 2018-002754 Application 13/727,777 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, AMEE A. SHAH, and MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 29–37.3 The Appellant’s representative appeared for Oral Argument on August 19, 2019.4 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Sept. 15, 2017), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jan. 16, 2018), and Specification (“Spec.,” filed Dec. 27, 2012), and to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 13, 2017) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Apr. 24, 2017). 2 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is Sony Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. 3 Claims 9–28 are withdrawn and not pending in this appeal. 4 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the transcript of the Hearing (“Tr.”). Appeal 2018-002754 Application 13/727,777 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant’s invention generally “relates to information processing apparatuses, information processing methods, information management apparatuses, information management methods, recording media, and information processing systems,” and more “particularly relates to an information processing apparatus, an information processing method, an information management apparatus, an information management method, a recording medium, and an information processing system which are capable of providing services using electronic money of high value for users and electronic money companies.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 29, 35, and 36 are the independent claims on appeal. Independent claim 35, which we reproduce below with added bracketing and paragraphing for reference, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 35. An information processing method for use with a mobile terminal having an IC (integrated circuit) chip having unique identification information which uniquely identifies the IC chip of the mobile terminal from other IC chips of other mobile terminals, a memory, a communication unit connected to an input/output interface, and a CPU (Central Processing Unit), said mobile terminal configured for use in a system having an information management apparatus and implementing a reward campaign for a user of the mobile terminal, said method comprising: [(a)] wirelessly receiving, by use of the communication unit, condition data representing a number of predetermined conditions needed to be satisfied within a predetermined period of time from the information management apparatus which accepts access from a plurality of mobile terminals connected by way of a communication network; and [(b)] executing, by use of the CPU, a program obtained from the memory and upon execution thereof Appeal 2018-002754 Application 13/727,777 3 (i) performing a first determination as to whether the number of predetermined conditions are satisfied in accordance with usage history stored in advance in the mobile terminal and the condition data such that the first determination is performable in the mobile terminal, (ii) causing an indication of a result of the first determination to be provided to a user of the mobile terminal and, when the result of the first determination indicates that the number of predetermined conditions are satisfied, causing a selectable input to be provided to the user which when selected causes application data including address information of the mobile terminal and the unique identification information of the IC chip to be wirelessly transmitted by way of the communication network for receipt by the information management apparatus, (iii) after wirelessly transmitting the application data, performing a second determination as to whether a response has been received from the information management apparatus, in which the response pertains to a determination performed by the information management apparatus as to whether the number of predetermined conditions are satisfied, and (iv) when a result of the second determination indicates that the response has been received, causing a second selectable input to be provided to the user which when selected requests user information pertaining to the user to be wirelessly transmitted for receipt by the information management apparatus such that a respective user who is not provided with the second selectable input is not requested to wirelessly transmit the user information pertaining to the respective user. Appeal Br. 10–11 (Claims App.). Appeal 2018-002754 Application 13/727,777 4 THE REJECTION Claims 29–37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. ANALYSIS The Appellant argues claims 29–37 as a group. See Appeal Br. 6, 8. We select claim 35 from the group as representative, with the remaining claims standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 35 U.S.C. § 101 Framework An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”). Appeal 2018-002754 Application 13/727,777 5 Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (185))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”). Appeal 2018-002754 Application 13/727,777 6 If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. Earlier this year, the PTO published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance”). Under the 2019 Revised 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 MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (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: (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 Appeal 2018-002754 Application 13/727,777 7 (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 2019 Revised Guidance. Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework Under the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework, the Examiner determines that claim 35 is “directed to managing information to determine if predetermined conditions have been satisfied” (Final Act. 3) and more particularly to “implementing a reward campaign (i.e. managing information), which is implemented by a system that uses computer and networking components” (Ans. 7). The Examiner determines that Implementing a reward campaign (i.e. managing information) is ‘method of organizing human behavior’ that is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit[;] . . . 1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory[;] . . . 1) Collecting information, 2) analyzing it, and 3) displaying certain results of the collection and analysis[;] . . . and Monitoring delivery of real-time information to users. Id. (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns LLC, 874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)); see also Final Act. 3. When viewed through the lens of the 2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One, the Examiner’s analysis depicts the claimed subject matter as a “[c]ertain method[] of organizing human activity” that includes Appeal 2018-002754 Application 13/727,777 8 “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); [and] commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The Appellant contends “the claims are directed to implementing a reward campaign for a user of a mobile terminal” (Appeal Br. 6), which is not dissimilar to the Examiner’s characterization. However, the Appellant argues that the claim “recites numerous steps, hardware elements, and interactions between hardware elements that no reasonable person would characterize as a mere ‘method of organizing human behavior.’ Characterizing [the] claim . . . as mere ‘method of organizing human behavior’ amounts to a gross oversimplification of the claim.” Reply Br. 2. Before determining whether the claims at issue are directed to an abstract idea, we first determine to what the claims are directed. [T]he “directed to” inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether “their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.” Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1375, 2016 WL 1393573, at *5 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (inquiring into “the focus of the claimed advance over the prior art”). Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The question is whether the claims as a whole “focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology” or are “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal 2018-002754 Application 13/727,777 9 An examination of claim 35 shows that the claim recites “[a]n information processing method for use with a mobile terminal having an IC (integrated circuit) chip” with information uniquely identifying the chip, “a memory, a communication unit connected to an input/output interface, and a CPU (Central Processing Unit),” with the “mobile terminal configured for use in a system having an information management apparatus and implementing a reward campaign for a user of the mobile terminal,” and the method comprising the steps of: (a) wirelessly receiving, by use of the communication unit and from the information management apparatus that is connected to and accessed by plurality of mobile terminals, “condition data representing . . . predetermined conditions needed to be satisfied within a predetermined period of time; and (b) “executing, by use of the CPU, a program obtained from the memory.” Appeal Br. 10–11 (Claims App.). The program “(i) perform[s] a first determination as to whether the number of predetermined conditions are satisfied . . . such that the first determination is performable in the mobile terminal, (ii) caus[es] an indication of a result of the first determination to be provided to a user of the mobile terminal,” conditionally “causing a selectable input to be provided to the user which when selected causes” application data and identification information to be wirelessly transmitted “when the result of the first determination indicates that the number of predetermined conditions are satisfied,” (iii) performs, after wirelessly transmitting the application data, “a second determination as to whether a response has been received from the information management apparatus,” the response “pertain[ing] to a determination performed by the information management apparatus as to whether the number of predetermined conditions are satisfied,” and (iv) conditionally, “when a Appeal 2018-002754 Application 13/727,777 10 result of the second determination indicates that the response has been received, caus[es] a second selectable input to be provided to the user” that causes information to be transmitted to the management apparatus “such that a . . . user who is not provided with the second selectable input is not requested to wirelessly transmit” that user’s information. Id. The mobile terminal that performs the claimed method has an IC chip, memory, communication unit, input/output interface, and CPU (see id.; Spec. ¶¶ 80–85) and “is configured as an electronic apparatus such as a smart phone or a tablet terminal carried by a user” (Spec. ¶ 63). The Specification describes the information management apparatus as “including a communication unit, a memory, and a controller” (id. ¶ 210) and as having a storage unit such as a hard disk, transmission and reception units such as a modem and network interface card, a drawing execution unit that may be software, display units such as an LCD and speaker (see id. ¶¶ 19–25, 180). When considered collectively and under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim’s limitations, we agree with the Examiner that the claim recites a method for implementing a reward campaign by managing information through using computer and networking components, which is not dissimilar to the Appellant’s characterization of a method for implementing a reward campaign for a user of a mobile terminal. Receiving and accessing data are extra-solution activities. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d sub nom Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra- solution activity). The elements of determining and causing are functionally recited without any detail how the results are accomplished, i.e., in what way(s) technologically or by what algorithm. Based on the example Appeal 2018-002754 Application 13/727,777 11 provided that a determination of whether a certain amount of money is spent during a time period (Spec. ¶ 158), the determinations can be performed by any analysis and comparison of data, which can be done mentally. Transmitting and presenting the results of the analysis are merely insignificant post-solution activities. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610–11 (“Flook stands for the proposition that the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.”’) (quoting Diehr, at 191–92). Thus, we are left with the limitations regarding causing inputs to be provided, with no meaningful steps outside that scope. The claims do not specifically recite how, technologically or by what algorithm, the CPU causes selectable inputs to be conditionally provided. The Appellant directs attention to the Specification at paragraphs 106, 111, 135, 136, 139, 160, 167, and 168. Appeal Br. 4. These paragraphs provide that images that prompt for and notify of information are displayed, a URL for displaying an image is transmitted, and input information is transmitted. As such, the causing of selectable inputs comprises displaying prompts for receiving information. As noted above, displaying and receiving information are extra-solution activities. Implementing a reward campaign by managing information through using computer and networking components is similar to the concepts of “selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis” in SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018), of “customizing a user interface to have targeted advertising based on user information” in Appeal 2018-002754 Application 13/727,777 12 Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Amazon”), of customizing and tailoring web page content based on navigation history and known user information in Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1369–70, and of providing incentive awards in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Safeway, Inc., 107 F.Supp.3d 677, 690 (E.D. Tex. 2015), aff'd, 639 F. App’x 637 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, we conclude the claim recites a way of implementing a reward campaign, which is a commercial interaction of advertising, marketing, or sales activities, one of the certain methods of organizing human activity as identified in the 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, and thus an abstract idea. As such, we disagree that the Appellant’s contentions that the specific requirements” of the claim were not considered (see Appeal Br. 7) and that “[c]haracterizing . . . [the] claim . . . as mere ‘method of organizing human behavior’ amounts to a gross oversimplification of the claim” (Reply Br. 2). We also disagree that because the claim “recites numerous steps, hardware elements, and interactions between hardware elements that no reasonable person would characterize as a mere ‘method of organizing human behavior.’” Appeal Br. 6. The number of steps does not alter the abstract nature under step one simply by adding a “degree of particularity” to the abstract idea. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Appellant argues that “the feature ‘cause a selectable input to be provided to the user which when selected causes application data including address information of the mobile terminal and the unique identification information of the IC chip to be wirelessly transmitted by way of the communication network for receipt by the information management Appeal 2018-002754 Application 13/727,777 13 apparatus’ as recited in claim 29, and similarly in claims 35 and 36, cannot be performed ‘mentally’,” and thus, the claim does not recite an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 7–8. However, the wireless transmission of data using general components simply confines the idea to a particular technological environment of mobile devices. “The Supreme Court and [the Federal Circuit] have repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“DIRECTV”), citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 222; Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 612, Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Specification is clear that cellular phones and smart phones, and thus wireless communication, had been widely in use at the time of the invention. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 2. “[T]hat the claimed invention transmits data wirelessly and therefore does not rely on a wired path is not itself a technological improvement, but rather simply a feature of wireless communication, which the specification explains was already a basic, conventional form of communication.” Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., No. 2018-2103, 2019 WL 3938278, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2019) Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54, we look to whether 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,” i.e., “integrates a judicial exception into a practical application.” Here, the Appellant contends that the claim Appeal 2018-002754 Application 13/727,777 14 “recite[s] an ordered combination of elements that realize an improved, practical technology for implementing a reward campaign for a user of a mobile terminal.” Appeal Br. 6–7.5 When viewed through the lens of the 2019 Revised Guidance, the Appellant contends that the elements of the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “[a]n additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 ((citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258–59 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We disagree. Specifically, the Appellant contends that the claim addresses the “numerous drawbacks associated with prior technologies for providing rewards to mobile terminal users based on their usage of electronic money.” Appeal Br. 6 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 3–9); see also Reply Br. 2–3. The Specification describes these “drawbacks” as: (1) all owners using electronic money receiving notification prompting participation in campaigns offering products because “it is difficult to select users who satisfy campaign conditions from among owners of the IC cards, the cellular phones, and the smart phones, for example” (Spec. ¶ 5; see also id. ¶¶ 3–4); (2) the difficulty in “organiz[ing] a campaign for promoting use of electronic money” when incentives are given at the tine a specific purchase is made (id. ¶ 6); (3) users’ hesitation in disclosing personal information and thus withholding from participating in the campaign when advance user registrations 5 We acknowledge that some of these considerations may be properly evaluated under Step 2 of Alice (Step 2B of Office guidance). Solely for purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the Office, we evaluate them under Step 1 of Alice (Step 2A of Office guidance). See 2019 Revised Guidance at 55. Appeal 2018-002754 Application 13/727,777 15 containing personal information are required (id. ¶ 7); and (4) a campaign is organized solely by an electronic money company in many cases, and it has not been assumed that a plurality of electronic money companies organize a campaign in cooperation with one another” (id. ¶ 8). The Specification thus describes previous problems related to user convenience and promotional campaign participation, but does not discuss how these are technological problems. Rather, “[t]he claimed invention desir[es] to provide a service utilizing electronic money of high value for users and electronic money companies.” Id. ¶ 9. The Appellant does not provide reasoning or evidence, and we do not see from the claim, how the limitations claim a solution “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. Having more user participation in promotional campaigns is a problem that existed before the Internet and electronic money. And the purported solution is the use of general mobile and computing devices operating in their ordinary and conventional capacities. The claim is not directed to a solution to a technological problem nor an improvement in computer, network, or wireless functionality. See DIRECTV, 838 F.3d at 1262. As the Examiner states, the claim “is not clearly directed to an improvement in computer-related technology (e.g., computer functionality) but rather a business practice of implementing a rewards campaign that uses computers as tools to manage information and implement the rewards campaign.” Ans. 7. Any improvement lies in facilitating and encouraging selective user to participate in promotional campaigns (see Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 3) by wirelessly transmitting inviting participation based on meeting requirement. Appeal 2018-002754 Application 13/727,777 16 These are not technological improvements or improvements to a technological area. The alleged improvement lies in the abstract idea itself, not to any technological improvement. See BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287–88 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Chamberlain Grp., 2019 WL 3938278 at *5 (“Wireless communication cannot be an inventive concept here, because it is the abstract idea that the claims are directed to.”). And, as discussed above, there is no further description of a particular technological manner for performing the steps. See TDE Petroleum Data Sols., Inc., v. AKM Enter., Inc., 657 F. App’x 991, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“As we discussed at greater length in Electric Power, the claims of the ’812 patent recite the what of the invention, but none of the how that is necessary to turn the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application” (citing Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1353)); Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336 (focusing on whether the claim is “an improvement to [the] computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity”). At the Hearing (see Tr.), the Appellant also contends that, under the 2019 Revised Guidance, the claim recites “an additional element [that] implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim” (84 Fed. Reg. at 55), because the claim uses an integrated chip with specific information used by the CPU to perform determinations such that the IC chip is integral to the claim (see Tr.). Specifically, the Appellant argues that the claim takes different information and uses it in a different way. See id. We disagree. That the claim requires specific computer or technological components, i.e., an integrated circuit card and a CPU, does not save the claim from abstraction. See BSG Tech., 899 F.3d at 1286. The Appeal 2018-002754 Application 13/727,777 17 recited structure merely provides a generic environment with which to perform the functions of retrieving and determining information. See id. Here, as discussed above, the IC chip and CPU are conventional components commonly used at the time of the invention (see supra; Spec. ¶¶ 2, 5, 81–85) and merely limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 2386–87). We further disagree with the Appellant’s contention (see Tr.) that the claim here is similar to those of Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In Core Wireless, the Federal Circuit held that “claims drawn to improved interfaces for electronic devices with small screens that allowed users to more quickly access desired data stored in, and functions of applications included in, the electronic devices were not drawn to the abstract idea of an index. Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1359, 1362.” Chamberlain Grp., 2019 WL 3938278 at *4. The court “concluded that the claims recited ‘a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.’” Id. (quoting Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363). Here, as discussed above, the claim merely recites a system with computer components that operate in their conventional manners to receive information, make determinations, and display the results of the determinations without any technological improvement to the computer components themselves. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 35 is directed to an abstract idea. Appeal 2018-002754 Application 13/727,777 18 The Second Step Under the second step in the Alice framework (corresponding to Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Guidance), we find supported the Examiner’s determination that the claim’s limitations, taken individually or as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because they “are recited at a high level of generality” and use generic computer components to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 9. The Appellant does not offer additional reasoning or argument why the claim “[a]dds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Taking the claimed elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. The claimed mobile terminal is a generic smart phone or tablet computing device, and the information management apparatus is a conventional, general purpose computer. See supra. It is clear from the Specification, including the claim’s language, that the “limitations require no improved computer resources [the Appellant] claims to have invented, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process” performed by the claimed system. SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1169–70. We agree with the Examiner that the computing device and processor operate in their ordinary and conventional capacities to perform the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of accessing, wirelessly receiving, determining, and conditionally causing Appeal 2018-002754 Application 13/727,777 19 wireless presentation of data. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (gathering, sending, monitoring, analyzing, selecting, and presenting information does not transform the abstract process into a patent-eligible invention); DIRECTV, 838 F.3d at 1262 (“The claim simply recites the use of generic features of cellular telephones, such as storage medium and an graphical user interface, as well as routine functions, such as transmitting and receiving signals, to implement the abstract idea.”), 1265 (the additional limitations of an application being wirelessly downloadable and displaying the broadcast channel/data “describe purely conventional features of cellular telephones and the applications that enable them to perform particular functions”); Chamberlain Grp, 2019 WL 3938278 at *3 (“The specification admits that the act of transmitting data wirelessly is ‘well understood in the art’”); SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1170 (“[A]n invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.’”) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 73). Considered as an ordered combination, the components of the Appellant’s claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data communication (accessing and receiving), analyzing (determining and weighting), and using the analysis to generate or present data is equally generic and conventional or otherwise held to be abstract. DIRECTV, 838 F.3d at 1262–1265 (holding that sequence of maintaining, presenting, and wirelessly transmitting and receiving data was abstract), Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354–56 (holding that the sequence of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real-time was Appeal 2018-002754 Application 13/727,777 20 abstract); Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that the sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission was abstract); SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1170 (holding that the sequence of storing, receiving, analyzing, and generating data was abstract). The ordering of the steps is, therefore, ordinary and conventional. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s determination that the limitations of claim 35 do not transform the claims into significantly more than the abstract idea. For at least the reasons above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of independent claim 35 and of claims 29–34, 36, and 37, the rejection of which stands with claim 35. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 29–36 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is AFFIRMED. 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED