Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-20-01067/USCOURTS-ca13-20-01067-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bernard Jobin
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

IN RE: BERNARD JOBIN,

Appellant

______________________

2020-1067

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 12/523,427.

______________________

Decided: May 8, 2020

______________________

BERNARD JOBIN, Beverly, MA, pro se. 

 PETER JOHN SAWERT, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for 

appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by THOMAS W.

KRAUSE, AMY J. NELSON, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED. 

 ______________________

Before O’MALLEY, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Bernard Jobin (“Jobin”) appeals a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming the examiner’s rejection of all pending claims in U.S. Patent 

Application No. 12/523,427 (“’427 application”) under 

Case: 20-1067 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 05/08/2020
2 IN RE: JOBIN

35 U.S.C. § 101. Ex Parte Bernard Jobin, No. 2018-005329, 

2019 WL 2318943 (P.T.A.B. May 22, 2019). As explained 

below, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

The ’427 application is titled “Method and System for 

Developing and Evaluating and Marketing Products 

Through Use of Intellectual Capital Derivative Rights.” 

J.A. 173. It is directed to methods and systems for developing “products, advertisements, games, and other creative 

realizations,” through reliance on participants who, by contributing, obtain stakes in the developed products. J.A. 

176; J.A. 191. Jobin describes Claim 221 of the application 

as “directed to an online collaborative content management 

system for online product development,” and Claim 231 as 

“directed to the method of operating an online collaborative 

content management system.” J.A. 101. Claim 221 recites:

221. A system corresponding to an online collaborative content management system and operating 

with a data structure that enables developing and 

evaluating and marketing products based on derivative rights, comprising:

a server, and user devices, which user devices each 

corresponds to a user of the system, the server containing a data structure and data, which data 

structure describes associations of data records and 

of the data contained in the server, which data includes a defined desired outcome and content items 

and at least one entitlement option, which entitlement options each defines a conditional entitlement, said described associations indicating at 

least:

a) a plurality of sets of data records, which 

data records in each of the sets are grouped

into a plurality of comprised subsets of data 

records, which subsets each comprises at 

Case: 20-1067 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 05/08/2020
IN RE: JOBIN 3

least one data record, which data records 

from the subsets each identifies a content 

item by containing a content item or by being otherwise associated to a content item, 

and consequently each of the subsets identifying at least one content item; and

b) one entitled grouping, which entitled 

groupings each represents a grouping of at 

least one set from the sets, each entitled 

grouping being associated with at least one 

of the entitlement options; 

the system being configured to at least:

communicate, from the server to each user device 

from a plurality of the user devices, the defined desired outcome and at least one description of a plurality of given sets from the sets from the described 

data structure associations and of the subsets of 

data records comprised in the given sets, which 

subsets of data records identify content items, at 

least one of the given sets from each of the descriptions corresponding to at least one of the sets comprised in at least one of the entitled groupings;

receive, in the server, responses from multiple user 

devices from the plurality of the user devices, and 

identify in the server as contributions a plurality of 

the received responses, and store the contributions 

in the server,

a) which received responses result from 

each user device from the multiple user devices receiving at least one of the descriptions of a plurality of given sets and using 

the described given sets to at least: (i) offer 

to its user an arrangement of content items 

by using and conveying, in the arrangement, the data structure associations of the 

Case: 20-1067 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 05/08/2020
4 IN RE: JOBIN

described given sets and of their subsets of 

identified content items, and (ii) associate 

at least one discriminating user rating with 

at least one of the subsets comprised in 

each of a plurality of the described given 

sets, each of the subsets associated with a 

rating representing a rated subset, and 

each user rating being indicative of a comparative user evaluation of how well a 

given subset of identified content items relates to the desired outcome when compared to other subsets within the same 

described given set, and each user rating 

being indicative of at least a user selection 

or a user tagging of one of the rated subsets 

of identified content items, and (iii) generate a response and communicate the generated response to the server which 

generated response describes at least one of 

the rated subsets with its associated rating 

based on the received descriptions of given 

sets,

b) which responses are identified in the 

server as contributions by each at least describing one or a plurality of rated subsets 

that corresponds, according to the described data structure associations, to one 

or a plurality of the subsets comprised in 

one of the entitled groupings, and which 

user devices, from which the responses

identified as contributions were received, 

each represents a contributor device of the 

system;

create in the server one or more contribution options, which contribution options each defines an 

association between a given one of the contributions and one of the entitlement options associated 

Case: 20-1067 Document: 24 Page: 4 Filed: 05/08/2020
IN RE: JOBIN 5

with one of the entitled groupings that comprises,

according to the described data structure associations, one or a plurality of subsets which corresponds to the one or a plurality of the rated subsets 

described in the given one of the contributions;

communicate from the server, to each of at least 

one of the contributor devices from which at least 

one of the contributions was received, at least one 

of the contribution options that associates the received at least one of the contributions with one of 

the entitlement options;

generate in the server at least one insight grouping, which insight groupings each represents a 

grouping of one or of a plurality of the subsets comprised in a given one of the entitled groupings

based on (i) the number of described rated subsets

that were received in the contributions and that 

correspond, according to the described data structure associations, to the one or plurality of the subsets comprised in the given one of the entitled 

grouping and (ii) the ratings associated with each 

of the described rated subsets that were received, 

and

classify in the server, as valuable product information, each of one or of a plurality of the content 

items identified by at least one of the subsets from 

at least one of the insight groupings;

detect in the server at least one contribution option[s] that each associates one of the entitlement 

options with one of the contributions that describes 

one or a plurality of rated subsets which corresponds, according to the described data structure

associations, to one or to a plurality of the subsets 

from one of the insight grouping;

Case: 20-1067 Document: 24 Page: 5 Filed: 05/08/2020
6 IN RE: JOBIN

receive in the server, from a given one of the user 

devices, a request for granting a given one of the 

entitlement options that is associated with one of 

the contributions defined in one of the contribution 

option communicated to a given one of the contributor devices, which request is indicative that the 

given one of the user devices was previously communicated, from the server or from the given one of 

the contributor devices, the one of the contribution 

options;

grant in the server the given one of the entitlement 

options by validating that the given one of the entitlement options was previously detected in the 

server, and communicate said grant to the given 

one of the user devices, said grant and said communicate being executed: (i) without restriction, or 

(ii) after one or more granting conditions are detected, in the server, to have been met.

Jobin, 2019 WL 2318943, at *1–2; J.A. 148–150. 

Applying the two-step framework set forth in Alice 

Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) and the Patent 

and Trademark Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Office Guidance”), the Board found that, aside from the 

recited online system, data structure, server, and user devices, “all of claim 221’s recited limitations, which collectively are directed to soliciting and evaluating product 

development contributions received from participants, and

compensating participants according to that evaluation,” 

“recite[] an abstract idea based on . . . methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.” Jobin, at *8–13. 

The Board also found that the additional claim elements 

reciting an online collaborative content management system, data structure, server, and user devices do not “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when 

reading claim 221 as a whole.” Id. at *13. And, the Board

Case: 20-1067 Document: 24 Page: 6 Filed: 05/08/2020
IN RE: JOBIN 7

was not persuaded that these elements indicate any “improve[ment in] the computer or its components’ functionality or efficiency, or otherwise change[] the way that th[e]

device[] function[s].” Id. (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft 

Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Board also 

found that the claim does not contain an inventive concept 

beyond the abstract idea. Id. at *18–19. For similar reasons, the Board found independent claims 229, 231, and 

239 also directed to an abstract idea. As to the dependent 

claims in the application, the Board found that the examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of ineligibility and 

reversed the examiner’s rejection for these claims. Id.

at *19. Jobin requested rehearing of the Board’s decision. 

The Board reconsidered its decision and declined to make 

any changes therein. J.A. 12. 

DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s factual findings for substantial 

evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. In re Gartside, 

203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Substantial evidence . . . means such relevant evidence as a reasonable 

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” 

Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). “Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is ultimately an issue 

of law we review de novo.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 

1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018). As we have previously explained, “[w]e are not . . . bound by the Office Guidance, 

which cannot modify or supplant the Supreme Court’s law 

regarding patent eligibility, or our interpretation and application thereof.” In re Rudy, No. 2019-2301, 2020 WL 

1966855, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2020). Accordingly, “we 

apply our law and the relevant Supreme Court precedent, 

not the Office Guidance, when analyzing subject matter eligibility.” Id. 

Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that “[w]hoever 

invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, 

manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and 

Case: 20-1067 Document: 24 Page: 7 Filed: 05/08/2020
8 IN RE: JOBIN

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[, however,] are not patentable.” Ass’n for 

Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 

589 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). We “follow 

the Supreme Court’s two-step framework for determining 

patent-eligibility under § 101.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. 

Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2020) 

(citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 217). Accordingly, we must determine first whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea or a law of 

nature. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. Under Alice step two, if the

claims at issue are directed to a patent ineligible concept, 

we “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-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 

72 (2012)). 

On appeal, Jobin argues that the Board ignored the 

“built-in capabilities” of his invention “pertaining to timing 

and measurement” and “improved data structure model.” 

Appellant’s Br. 6, 9. He contends that the Board “overgeneraliz[ed] and mischaracterize[ed]” the claim limitations. 

Id. at 14–17. He also takes issue with the Board’s application of our case law to his case. Id. at 26. Jobin further 

contends the Board erred by rejecting his request to use 

“the simpler and shorter claim 229” as illustrative of all 

pending claims. Appellant’s Reply Br. 14. Jobin also appears to argue that the Board and Examiner “adapt[ed]

their rejections to changes in Office and Court guidance” 

without giving him a chance to respond. Appellant’s Br. 

28. We see no merit to Jobin’s arguments and conclude 

that, although primarily framed as an application of the 

Office Guidance, “the Board’s reasoning and conclusion are 

Case: 20-1067 Document: 24 Page: 8 Filed: 05/08/2020
IN RE: JOBIN 9

nevertheless fully in accord with the relevant caselaw.” See 

Rudy, 2020 WL 1966855, at *3.

Despite its expansive language and its recitation of 

servers and databases, claim 221 of Jobin’s application 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. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 

1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e have treated analyzing 

information by steps people go through in their minds . . . 

without more, as essentially mental processes within the 

abstract-idea category.”). The server and database recited 

in the claim are merely tools used for organizing human 

activity, and are not an improvement to computer technology. Thus, the claim does not present any specific asserted 

improvement in computer capabilities. We reject Jobin’s 

arguments to the contrary, which amount to nothing more 

than conclusory statements unmoored from specific claim 

language. 

We next turn to Alice step two and consider whether 

the elements of Jobin’s claim 221, either individually or as 

an ordered combination, transform that claim into a patent 

eligible application of the abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 

217. We conclude that they do not. Claim 221 does not 

impose any meaningful limit on the method of collection, 

organization, grouping, and storage of data. Rather, the 

“online system,” “server,” “data structure,” and “user device” elements recite generic technology for implementing 

the claimed abstract idea. The Board correctly concluded 

that, considered individually or as an ordered combination, 

the additional elements in Jobin’s claim 221 do not transform the claim into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.

Case: 20-1067 Document: 24 Page: 9 Filed: 05/08/2020
10 IN RE: JOBIN

As to Jobin’s argument that the Board erred by rejecting his request to use “the simpler and shorter claim 229” 

as illustrative of all pending claims, Appellant’s Reply Br.

14, we find this argument unpersuasive. We do not see anything in claim 229, or, indeed, in independent claims 231 

and 239, that would meaningfully distinguish these claims

from claim 221 for purposes of patent eligibility. Accordingly, we conclude that the Board did not err in concluding 

that claims 221, 229, 231, and 239 of Jobin’s ’427 application are patent ineligible. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Jobin’s remaining arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Board is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

The parties shall bear their own costs. 

Case: 20-1067 Document: 24 Page: 10 Filed: 05/08/2020