United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DATA ENGINE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-1135

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 1:14-cv-01115-LPS, Chief 

Judge Leonard P. Stark.

______________________ 

Decided: October 9, 2018

______________________ 

 BENJAMIN F. FOSTER, Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, 

Alavi & Mensing PC, Houston, TX, argued for plaintiffappellant. Represented by AMIR H. ALAVI, IFTIKAHR 

AHMED, ALISA A. LIPSKI. 

 DARYL JOSEFFER, King & Spalding LLP, Washington, 

DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Represented by

AMELIA GRACE YOWELL; JONATHAN K. WALDROP, MARCUS 

BARBER, JOHN WALTER DOWNING, DARCY L. JONES, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, Redwood Shores, 

CA; DAN L. BAGATELL, Perkins Coie LLP, Hanover, NH. 

______________________ 
2 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

Before REYNA, BRYSON, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

STOLL, Circuit Judge. 

Data Engine Technologies LLC (“DET”) appeals the 

district court’s entry of judgment on the pleadings holding 

that the asserted claims of DET’s U.S. Patent 

Nos. 5,590,259; 5,784,545; 6,282,551; and 5,303,146 are 

ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court held 

that the asserted claims are directed to abstract ideas and

fail to provide an inventive concept. We conclude that, 

with the exception of claim 1 of the ’551 patent, the asserted claims of the ’259, ’545, and ’551 patents (“Tab 

Patents”) are directed to patent-eligible subject matter. 

These claims are not abstract, but rather are directed to a 

specific improved method for navigating through complex 

three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets. We agree, 

however, that the asserted claims of the ’146 patent, 

reciting methods for tracking changes to data in spreadsheets, are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, 

recognizing, and storing changed information. After a 

searching review, we find nothing in these claims that 

provides an inventive concept sufficient to render the 

claims patent eligible. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part, 

reverse-in-part, and remand. 

BACKGROUND

I. The Tab Patents

The Tab Patents are titled “System and Methods for 

Improved Spreadsheet Interface With User-Familiar 

Objects,” and claim priority to April 8, 1992.1 The Tab 

 

1 Because the Tab Patents’ specifications are substantially identical, we refer only to the ’259 patent’s 

specification. 
DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 3

Patents claim systems and methods for making complex 

electronic spreadsheets more accessible by providing 

familiar, user-friendly interface objects—specifically, 

notebook tabs—to navigate through spreadsheets while 

circumventing the arduous process of searching for, 

memorizing, and entering complex commands. 

The Tab Patents teach that the advent of electronic 

spreadsheets offered dramatic improvements in creating, 

editing, and using spreadsheets to organize and process 

data. Despite such advantages, twenty-five years ago, 

electronic spreadsheets were not easy to use. ’259 patent 

col. 2 ll. 57–59. Users were required to master complex 

commands in order to perform basic operations within a 

spreadsheet. Id. at col. 2 ll. 28–29. To find an appropriate command for an operation, users would navigate

through complex menu systems, with the proper command buried under several menus. Id. at col. 2 ll. 29–32. 

“Finding this approach to be unworkable, many users 

[would] memorize frequently-needed commands instead.” 

Id. at col. 2 ll. 41–42. Because such commands were 

arbitrary (e.g., “/Worksheet Global Default Other International”), users could only master a very small fraction of 

available commands and features. Id. at col. 2 ll. 40–47, 

53–56. 

The Tab Patents specifically identify problems with 

navigation through prior art three-dimensional or multipage electronic spreadsheets. The Tab Patents explain 

that the complex commands required to manipulate each 

additional spread of the three-dimensional spreadsheet

diminished the utility and ease of use of this technology. 

The invention claimed in the Tab Patents provided a 

solution to this problem. Specifically, the Tab Patents are 

directed to and claim a method of implementing a notebook-tabbed interface, which allows users to easily navigate through three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets. 

As shown in Figure 4G of the ’259 patent below, the Tab 
4 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

Patents provide “an electronic spreadsheet system includ[ing] a notebook interface having a plurality of notebook pages, each of which contains a spread of 

information cells, or other desired page type.” Id. at col. 3 

ll. 48–52. In contrast to conventional electronic spreadsheets, the method claimed in the Tab Patents “includes 

user-familiar objects, i.e., paradigms of real-world objects 

which the user already knows how to use” such as notebook tabs. Id. at col. 6 ll. 52–58. “In this manner, complexities of the system are hidden under ordinary, 

everyday object metaphors,” providing a “highly intuitive 

interface—one in which advanced features (e.g., threedimensionality) are easily learned.” Id. at col. 6 ll. 58–63.

 

Figure 2D below shows more closely an individual

spreadsheet page with notebook tabs located along the 

bottom edge of the page. 
DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 5

In this preferred embodiment, “each page identifier is 

in the form of a tab member (e.g., members 261a, 262a, 

263a) situated along a bottom edge of the notebook.” Id. 

at col. 8 ll. 13–15. Although these tabs are labeled A, B, 

and C, etc., they are typically given descriptive names 

assigned by the user. Id. at col. 8 ll. 19–23. To move to 

different spreadsheet pages, the user selects the corresponding tab for that page. Id. at col. 8 ll. 45–47. Thus, 

“instead of finding information by scrolling different parts 

of a large spreadsheet, or by invoking multiple windows of 

a conventional three-dimensional spreadsheet, the present invention allows the user to simply and conveniently 

‘flip through’ several pages of the notebook to rapidly 

locate information of interest.” Id. at col. 8 ll. 51–57. This 

improved interface allows for “rapidly accessing and 

processing information on the different pages, including, 

for example, displaying a plurality of page identifiers for 

selecting individual pages.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 53–56. 

Although these spreadsheet interfaces have become 

ubiquitous, Quattro Pro, the first commercial embodiment 

of the claimed invention, was highly acclaimed as having 

revolutionized three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets. 

During prosecution, DET submitted contemporaneous 

articles showing the state of the art at the time of the 

invention and evidencing the significance of the claimed 

methods to spreadsheet technology. For example, PC 

World, a leading computer magazine, published a frontpage article, “Quattro Pro for Windows: The Ultimate 3-D 

Spreadsheet.” J.A. 981. The article reflected the industry’s view that “keeping large, complex worksheet projects 

organized, manageable, and reliable ha[d] long been a 

major concern for serious spreadsheet users” and that 

existing spreadsheets had “data and results hidden all 

over the place.” J.A. 982. The article touts the claimed 

notebook-tabbed spreadsheet interface as a solution to 

that problem, explaining that it “makes developing nifty 

applications far easier for the average spreadsheet user, 
6 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

and [that] intelligent command organization makes 

navigation efficient.” Id. PC World published another

cover story naming Quattro Pro “The Best of 1992,” again 

lauding it as “the first spreadsheet to make threedimensional modeling an accessible, useful analytic tool.” 

J.A. 1007. The article stated that “[o]ne of the keys to the 

product’s success is a notebook metaphor, in which each 

worksheet page can be assigned a descriptive name and 

users can navigate through the set by clicking on page 

tabs.” Id. 

Similarly, in 1992, InfoWorld named Quattro Pro the 

product of the year for productivity applications. In doing 

so, InfoWorld wrote: 

We collected all the word processors, spreadsheets, databases, personal information managers, and other productivity applications and asked 

ourselves a question: “Which of these programs 

really changed the way an individual user goes 

about handling data? Does any one stand out as a 

productivity booster?” 

Our answer was Quattro Pro for Windows. The 

reason: Borland designed this program from the 

ground up and examined how spreadsheet users 

would work in a Windows environment. The 

notebook metaphor, with pages and tabs for different worksheets, simplifies handling large worksheets. The “interface builder” lets a user design 

custom dialog boxes without extensive macro programming. And, of course, Quattro Pro’s graphics 

are stellar.

J.A. 1008 (emphasis added). In total, DET submitted 

seven articles dated between 1992 and 1993, all touting 

the advantages of its use of notebook tabs to improve 

navigation through three-dimensional spreadsheets. 

See J.A. 981–1010. 
DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 7

DET filed suit against Google LLC, asserting claims 

1–2, 12–13, 16–17, 19, 24, 46–47, and 51 of the 

’259 patent; claims 1–2, 5–7, 10, 13, and 35 of the 

’545 patent; and claims 1, 3, 6–7, 10, 12–13, 15, and 18 of 

the ’551 patent. The district court considered claim 12 of 

the ’259 patent representative of all asserted claims of the 

Tab Patents. See Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google Inc., 

211 F. Supp. 3d 669, 677–78 (D. Del. 2016) (“District 

Court Op.”). Claim 12 of the ’259 patent recites:

12. In an electronic spreadsheet system for storing and manipulating information, a computerimplemented method of representing a threedimensional spreadsheet on a screen display, the 

method comprising:

displaying on said screen display a first spreadsheet page from a plurality of spreadsheet pages, 

each of said spreadsheet pages comprising an array of information cells arranged in row and column format, at least some of said information 

cells storing user-supplied information and formulas operative on said user-supplied information, 

each of said information cells being uniquely identified by a spreadsheet page identifier, a column 

identifier, and a row identifier;

while displaying said first spreadsheet page, displaying a row of spreadsheet page identifiers 

along one side of said first spreadsheet page, each 

said spreadsheet page identifier being displayed 

as an image of a notebook tab on said screen display and indicating a single respective spreadsheet page, wherein at least one spreadsheet page 

identifier of said displayed row of spreadsheet 

page identifiers comprises at least one usersettable identifying character;

receiving user input for requesting display of a 

second spreadsheet page in response to selection 
8 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

with an input device of a spreadsheet page identifier for said second spreadsheet page;

in response to said receiving user input step, displaying said second spreadsheet page on said 

screen display in a manner so as to obscure said 

first spreadsheet page from display while continuing to display at least a portion of said row of 

spreadsheet page identifiers; and

receiving user input for entering a formula in a 

cell on said second spreadsheet page, said formula 

including a cell reference to a particular cell on 

another of said spreadsheet pages having a particular spreadsheet page identifier comprising at 

least one user-supplied identifying character, said 

cell reference comprising said at least one usersupplied identifying character for said particular 

spreadsheet page identifier together with said 

column identifier and said row identifier for said 

particular cell.

’259 patent col. 26 l. 43–col. 27 l. 17. 

II. The ’146 Patent

The ’146 patent is titled “System and Methods for Improved Scenario Management in an Electronic Spreadsheet.” The ’146 patent is directed to methods that allow

electronic spreadsheet users to track their changes. The 

specification teaches that prior art electronic spreadsheets 

were not particularly adept at managing “what-if” scenarios in a given spreadsheet. ’146 patent col. 2 ll. 41–44. 

The patent explains that “[s]ince a given spreadsheet 

model is routinely created under a set of assumptions 

(e.g., level of sales, corporate tax rate, and the like), it is 

desirable to test the extremes of one’s assumptions to 

ascertain the likely results.” Id. at col. 2 ll. 45–49. Prior 

art spreadsheets, however, “provided little or no tools for 

creating and managing such a multitude of scenarios.” 
DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 9

Id. at col. 2 ll. 51–52. Instead, users had to “resort to 

manually creating separate copies of the underlying 

model, with the user responsible for tracking any modifications made in the various copies.” Id. at col. 2 ll. 53–56.

The ’146 patent purports to solve this problem by 

providing an electronic spreadsheet system “having a 

preferred interface and methods for creating and tracking 

various versions or ‘scenarios’ of a data model.” Id. at 

col. 2 ll. 61–63. The claimed system “includes tools for 

specifying a ‘capture area,’ that is, a specific set of information cells to be tracked and an Identify Scenario tool 

for automatically determining changes between a captured parent or baseline model and a new scenario.” 

Id. at col. 2 ll. 63–67. 

DET alleged infringement of claims 1, 26–28, and 32–

34 of the ’146 patent. The district court considered independent claims 1 and 26 representative of all the asserted 

claims of the ’146 patent. See District Court Op., 

211 F. Supp. 3d at 680. Claims 1 and 26 recite:

1. In an electronic spreadsheet system for modeling user-specified information in a data model 

comprising a plurality of information cells, a 

method for automatically tracking different versions of the data model, the method comprising:

(a) specifying a base set of information cells for 

the system to track changes; 

(b) creating a new version of the data model by 

modifying at least one information cell from the 

specified base set; and

(c) automatically determining cells of the data 

model which have changed by comparing cells in 

the new version against corresponding ones in the 

base set.

*** 
10 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

26. In an electronic spreadsheet system, a method 

for storing different versions of a spreadsheet 

model, the method comprising:

(a) maintaining a base version of the spreadsheet 

model as ordered information on a storage device; 

and

(b) for each new version of the spreadsheet model:

(i) determining portions of the new version which 

have changed when compared against the base 

version, and

(ii) maintaining the new version by storing additional information for only those portions determined to have changed.

’146 patent col. 14 ll. 1–13 (emphasis added), col. 16 

ll. 7–19.

III. The District Court’s Decision

Google filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that 

the asserted claims of the Tab Patents and the ’146 patent 

are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 

§ 101. The district court granted the motion with respect 

to the Tab Patents, concluding that representative 

claim 12 of the ’259 patent is “directed to the abstract idea 

of using notebook-type tabs to label and organize spreadsheets.” District Court Op., 211 F. Supp. 3d at 678. The 

district court also agreed with Google that claim 12 “is 

directed to an abstract idea that humans have commonly 

performed entirely in their minds, with the aid of columnar pads and writing instruments.” Id. at 679. The 

district court held that the remaining limitations of 

claim 12 fail to recite an inventive concept. Id. 

Similarly, with respect to the ’146 patent, the district 

court concluded that the asserted claims are directed to 

the abstract idea of “collecting spreadsheet data, recogniz-
DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 11

ing changes to spreadsheet data, and storing information 

about the changes,” and more specifically, directed “to 

input of information in a (computerized) columnar pad, 

recognition of changes in later versions of the inputted 

information, and storage of information about the changes.” Id. at 680–81 (emphases omitted). The district court 

also held that additional claim limitations directed to 

electronic spreadsheets failed to provide an inventive 

concept sufficient to confer patent eligibility. Id. 

DET appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 

DISCUSSION

I 

We review the district court’s judgment on the pleadings under regional circuit law. Merck & Co. v. Hi-Tech 

Pharmacal Co., 482 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The 

Third Circuit reviews the grant of judgment on the pleadings de novo, “accept[ing] all of the allegations in the 

pleadings of the party against whom the motion is addressed as true and draw[ing] all reasonable inferences in 

favor of the non-moving party.” Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. 

Co. v. Squires, 667 F.3d 388, 390 (3d Cir. 2012). Patent 

eligibility can be determined on the pleadings under 

Rule 12(c) when there are no factual allegations that, 

when taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility 

question as a matter of law. Cf. Aatrix Software, Inc. v. 

Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1125 

(Fed. Cir. 2018); Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 

1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 

Section 101 provides that “[w]hoever 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.” 

35 U.S.C. § 101. In Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, the Supreme Court articulated a two-step test for
12 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

examining patent eligibility under § 101. 134 S. Ct. 2347 

(2014). “We must first determine whether the claims at 

issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Id.

at 2355. “Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Id. at 2354 (quoting 

Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 

569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). “The ‘abstract ideas’ category 

embodies ‘the longstanding rule that ‘[a]n idea of itself is 

not patentable.’” Id. at 2355 (alteration in original)

(quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). If 

the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept 

under Alice step 1, “the claims satisfy § 101 and we need 

not proceed to the second step.” Core Wireless Licensing 

S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 

2018) (citing Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 

867 F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). 

If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, however, we next consider Alice step two. In this 

step, 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.” Alice, 

134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. 

Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78–79 (2012)). This 

second step is “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.’” 

Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S.

at 72–73). 

II

We first address the Tab Patents. Our analysis begins at Alice step one, asking “whether the claims at issue 

are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Id. at 2355. 

With the exception of claim 1 of the ’551 patent, we hold 
DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 13

that the asserted claims of the Tab Patents are directed to 

patent-eligible subject matter. 

A 

When considered as a whole, and in light of the specification, representative claim 12 of the ’259 patent is not 

directed to an abstract idea. Rather, the claim is directed 

to a specific method for navigating through threedimensional electronic spreadsheets. The method provides a specific solution to then-existing technological 

problems in computers and prior art electronic spreadsheets. The specification teaches that prior art computer 

spreadsheets were not user friendly. They required users 

to “master many complex and arbitrary operations.” 

’259 patent col. 2 ll. 28–29. Users had to search through 

complex menu systems to find appropriate commands to 

execute simple computer tasks, which required users to 

memorize frequently needed commands. Id. at col. 2 

ll. 29–45. This was burdensome and hindered a user’s 

ability to find or access the many commands and features 

available in prior art computer spreadsheets, undercutting the effectiveness of the computer as a means to 

review and edit a spreadsheet. Id. at col. 2 ll. 45–56. This 

was particularly true for three-dimensional spreadsheets, 

which allowed users to build spreadsheet workspaces 

consisting of multiple two-dimensional spreadsheets, 

further increasing the complexity of using and navigating 

between multiple spreadsheets. Id. at col. 2 l. 66–col. 3 

l. 24. 

The Tab Patents solved this known technological 

problem in computers in a particular way—by providing a 

highly intuitive, user-friendly interface with familiar 

notebook tabs for navigating the three-dimensional worksheet environment. Id. at col. 3 ll. 44–52. The improvement allowed computers, for the first time, to provide 

rapid access to and processing of information in different 

spreadsheets, as well as easy navigation in three-
14 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

dimensional spreadsheets. The invention was applauded 

by the industry for improving computers’ functionality as 

a tool able to instantly access all parts of complex threedimensional electronic spreadsheets. Numerous contemporaneous articles attributed the improved threedimensional spreadsheets’ success to its notebook tab 

feature.2

Representative claim 12 recites precisely this technical solution and improvement in computer spreadsheet 

functionality. The claim recites specific steps detailing

the method of navigating through spreadsheet pages

within a three-dimensional spreadsheet environment

using notebook tabs. The claim requires displaying on a 

screen display a row of spreadsheet page identifiers along 

 

2 The district court declined to consider the articles 

included in the prosecution history, relying only on the 

pleadings and the patents attached to DET’s complaint. 

District Court Op., 211 F. Supp. 3d at 681 n.4. On a 

motion for judgment on the pleadings, however, the court 

may consider “matters of public record.” Cf. Bruni v. City 

of Pittsburgh, 824 F.3d 353, 360 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting 

Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 

998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993)). Prosecution histories 

constitute public records. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. 

v. Avia Group Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 957 (Fed. Cir. 

2000) (“The prosecution history constitutes a public 

record . . . .”); see 37 C.F.R. § 1.11(a) (“The specification, 

drawings, and all papers to the file of: [a] published 

application; a patent; or a statutory invention registration 

are open to inspection by the public . . . .”). We consider 

this evidence relevant in our de novo review because it is 

part of the Tab Patents’ prosecution histories and was 

relied on in DET’s opposition to Google’s Rule 12(c) motion. 
DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 15

one side of the first spreadsheet page, with each spreadsheet page identifier being a notebook tab. The claim 

requires at least one user-settable identifying character to 

label the notebook tab and describes navigating through 

the various spreadsheet pages through selection of the 

notebook tabs. The claim further requires a formula that 

uses the identifying character to operate on information 

spread between different spreadsheet pages that are 

identified by their tabs. The claimed method does not 

recite the idea of navigating through spreadsheet pages 

using buttons or a generic method of labeling and organizing spreadsheets. Rather, the claims require a specific 

interface and implementation for navigating complex

three-dimensional spreadsheets using techniques unique 

to computers. 

In this regard, claim 12 is similar to the claims we 

held patent eligible in Core Wireless. There, the claims 

were directed to an improved display interface that allowed users to more quickly access stored data and programs in small-screen electronics, thereby improving the 

efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless, 

880 F.3d at 1359. The prior art taught that small-screen 

electronic interfaces required users to scroll through and 

switch views to find desired data and functions. Id. 

at 1363. Core Wireless’s invention, however, improved 

the efficiency of these display interfaces. By displaying 

only a limited list of common functions and data from 

which to choose, the invention spared users from timeconsuming operations of navigating to, opening up, and 

then navigating within, each separate application. Id. 

The invention thus increased the efficiency with which 

users could navigate through various views and windows. 

Id. We rejected the accused infringer’s contention that 

the claims were merely directed to the abstract idea of 

indexing information because the claims were directed “to 

an improved user interface for computing devices” and “a 

particular manner of summarizing and presenting infor-
16 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

mation in electronic devices.” Id. at 1362 (emphasis 

added). We concluded that the claims were patent eligible 

because the claims “recite[d] a specific improvement over 

prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for 

electronic devices,” and thus were directed to “an improvement in the functioning of computers.” Id. at 1363. 

 Claim 12 of the ’259 patent similarly recites a method 

that differs from prior art navigation methods and “provide[s] for rapidly accessing and processing information”

in three-dimensional spreadsheets. ’259 patent col. 3 

ll. 53–54. “[I]nstead of finding information by scrolling 

different parts of a large spreadsheet” the invention 

“allows the user to simply and conveniently ‘flip through’ 

several pages of the notebook to rapidly locate information of interest.” Id. at col. 8 ll. 51–57. Moreover, akin 

to the claims in Core Wireless, claim 12 recites a “specific”

and “particular” manner of navigating a threedimensional spreadsheet that improves the efficient 

functioning of computers. See Core Wireless, 880 F.3d 

at 1362, 1363. 

Likewise, claim 12 comports with the claims we held 

patent eligible in Trading Technologies International, Inc.

v. CQG, Inc. 675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017). There, 

the claims recited a trading system in which a graphical 

user interface displayed dynamic bid and ask prices for a 

particular commodity traded in the market along with a 

static display of prices corresponding to the bids and asks. 

Id. at 1003. The system paired orders with the static 

display of prices to prevent entry of orders that had

changed prices. Id. The patents explained that the 

invention solved an existing problem in the prior art by 

reducing the time it took to place and execute a trading 

order. We agreed with the district court that “the challenged patents ‘solve[d] problems of prior graphical user 

interface devices . . . in the context of computerized trading[] relating to speed, accuracy and usability.’” Id. 

at 1004 (alterations in original) (quoting Trading Techs. 
DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 17

Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 05-cv-4811, 2015 WL 774655, 

at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2015)). As the district court had 

explained, the claims were not merely directed to displaying information on a graphical user interface, but rather 

“require[d] a specific, structured graphical user interface 

paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to 

the graphical user interface’s structure that is addressed 

to and resolves a specifically identified problem in the 

prior state of the art.” Id. We agreed and adopted the 

district court’s articulated reasons to conclude that the 

claims were not abstract under Alice step one. Id. 

Google asserts that this court has repeatedly found 

that claims directed to methods of organizing and presenting information are abstract and that we should so 

hold here. During oral argument, Google identified three 

cases to best support its position: Affinity Labs of Texas, 

LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial

Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (hereinafter, “Capital One”); and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (hereinafter, “Erie 

Indemnity”). See Oral Arg. at 29:57–30:51, 

http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx

?fl=2017-1135.mp3. We have reviewed these cases, but 

conclude that the claims in those cases were materially 

different. 

In Affinity Labs, we held that claims directed to 

“streaming regional broadcast signals to cellular telephones located outside the region” were ineligible because

“[t]he concept of providing out-of-region access to regional 

broadcast content is an abstract idea.” 838 F.3d at 1255, 

1258. The claims were “entirely functional in nature,” 

and we found nothing in the claims “directed to how to 

implement out-of-region broadcasting.” Id. at 1258. 

Although the representative claim also recited “a graphical user interface” for displaying a menu of available 

media options from which a user could select, the limita-
18 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

tion was “conventional,” insignificant extra-solution 

activity and thus insufficient to confer patent eligibility. 

Id. at 1261. In Capital One, the claims were directed to 

an apparatus for managing eXtensible Markup Language 

(“XML”) documents. 850 F.3d at 1338. The invention

allowed users to make changes to data in a “dynamic 

document,” which could then be dynamically propagated 

back into an original XML document. Id. at 1339. We 

held those claims were “directed to the abstract idea of 

collecting, displaying, and manipulating data.” Id. 

at 1340. In Erie Indemnity, we held that claims reciting a 

method for searching a database using an index of descriptive terms associated with “category” and “domain” 

tags were directed to the abstract idea of “creating an 

index and using that index to search for and retrieve 

data.” 850 F.3d at 1326–27. The claims did not recite any 

specific structure or improvement of computer functionality sufficient to render the claims not abstract. Id.

at 1328–29.

In contrast to Affinity Labs, Capital One, and Erie Indemnity, representative claim 12 is not simply directed to 

displaying a graphical user interface or collecting, manipulating, or organizing information to improve navigation 

through three-dimensional spreadsheets.3 Instead, the 

 

3 We have also considered Affinity Labs of Texas, 

LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016), 

also cited by Google, and find it distinguishable as well. 

There, the claims were directed to “a network-based 

media system with a customized user interface, in which 

the system delivers streaming content from a networkbased resource.” Id. at 1268. We held the claims ineligible because “the concept of delivering user-selected media 

content to portable devices is an abstract idea.” 

Id. at 1269. Although the claim recited a “customized 
DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 19

claim recites a specific structure (i.e., notebook tabs)

within a particular spreadsheet display that performs a 

specific function (i.e., navigating within a threedimensional spreadsheet). 

Nor is representative claim 12 directed generally to 

displaying information on a screen, without “requir[ing] a 

new source or type of information, or new techniques for 

analyzing it,” like the claims in Electric Power Group, 

LLC v. Alstom S.A. 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 

2016). And unlike ineligible claims that merely “collect[], 

organiz[e], and display . . . information on a generic 

display device,” claim 12 recites “a specific improvement 

to the way computers . . . operate.” See Interval Licensing 

LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018) 

(quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 

1336 (Fed Cir. 2016)). 

At Alice step one, “it is not enough to merely identify a 

patent-ineligible concept underlying the claim; we must 

determine whether that patent-ineligible concept is what 

the claim is ‘directed to.’” Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. 

CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

And that inquiry requires that the claims be read as a 

whole. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 n.3. We conclude 

that, when read as a whole, in light of the specification, 

 

user interface,” we held that “‘customizing information 

based on . . . information known about the user’ is an 

abstract idea.” Id. at 1271 (alteration in original) (quoting 

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 

792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Representative 

claim 12 of the ’259 patent, however, is different. Although its recited notebook tabs can be customized, see 

’259 patent col. 8 ll. 19–23, they are more than merely 

labeled tabs. They implement a specific function—an 

improved manner of navigating through the spreadsheet. 
20 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

claim 12 is directed to more than a generic or abstract 

idea as it claims a particular manner of navigating threedimensional spreadsheets, implementing an improvement 

in electronic spreadsheet functionality. 

Google avers that humans have long used tabs to organize information. It cites tabbed notebooks, binder 

dividers, file folders, and sticky Post-it notes as wellknown examples of organizing information using tabs. 

We agree that tabs existed outside the context of electronic spreadsheets prior to the claimed invention. It is not 

enough, however, to merely trace the invention to some 

real-world analogy. The eligibility question is not whether anyone has ever used tabs to organize information. 

That question is reserved for §§ 102 and 103. The question of abstraction is whether the claim is “directed to” the 

abstract idea itself. Id. We must consider the claim as a 

whole to determine whether the claim is directed to an 

abstract idea or something more. Google fails to appreciate the functional improvement achieved by the specifically recited notebook tabs in the claimed methods. The 

notebook appearance of the tabs was specifically chosen 

by the inventors because it is easily identified by users. 

The tabs are not merely labeled buttons or other generic 

icons. DET has disclaimed as much. See Oral 

Arg. at 11:03–47. Rather, the notebook tabs are specific 

structures within the three-dimensional spreadsheet 

environment that allow a user to avoid the burdensome 

task of navigating through spreadsheets in separate 

windows using arbitrary commands. 

Because we conclude that representative claim 12 of 

the ’259 patent is not abstract under Alice step one, we 

need not reach Alice step two with respect to claim 12. 

See Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363. 

B 

Notwithstanding our conclusion that representative 

claim 12 of the ’259 patent is directed to patent-eligible 
DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 21

subject matter, we conclude that claim 1 of the ’551 patent is ineligible. 

Claim 1 of the ’551 patent recites:

1. In an electronic spreadsheet for processing alphanumeric information, said . . . electronic 

spreadsheet comprising a three-dimensional 

spreadsheet operative in a digital computer and 

including a plurality of cells for entering data and 

formulas, a method for organizing the threedimensional spreadsheet comprising:

partitioning said plurality of cells into a plurality 

of two-dimensional cell matrices so that each of 

the two-dimensional cell matrices can be presented to a user as a spreadsheet page; 

associating each of the cell matrices with a usersettable page identifier which serves as a unique 

identifier for said each cell matrix; 

creating in a first cell of a first page at least one 

formula referencing a second cell of a second page 

said formula including the user-settable page 

identifier for the second page; and 

storing said first and second pages of the plurality 

of cell matrices such that they appear to the user 

as being stored within a single file. 

’551 patent col. 23 l. 60–col. 24 l. 13. 

We conclude that under Alice step one, this claim is

directed to the abstract idea of identifying and storing

electronic spreadsheet pages. DET concedes that, unlike 

claim 12 of the ’259 patent, claim 1 of the ’551 patent is 

“directed at something a bit more general.” 

See Oral Arg. at 9:55–58. Indeed, it generically recites 

“associating each of the cell matrices with a user-settable 

page identifier” and does not recite the specific implementation of a notebook tab interface. ’551 patent col. 24 
22 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

ll. 3–4. Claim 1 of the ’551 patent is therefore not limited 

to the specific technical solution and improvement in 

electronic spreadsheet functionality that rendered representative claim 12 of the ’259 patent eligible. Instead, 

claim 1 of the ’551 patent covers any means for identifying electronic spreadsheet pages. 

Because claim 1 of the ’551 patent is directed to an 

abstract idea, we must turn to Alice step two to “determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the 

nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” 

Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78). 

The “mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patenteligible invention.” Id. at 2358. “For the role of a computer in a computer-implemented invention to be deemed 

meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve 

more than performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] 

conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” 

Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo 

Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 

2014) (alteration in original) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. 

at 2359). 

After a searching review, the additional elements of 

claim 1 of the ’551 patent fail to provide an inventive 

concept. Claim 1 merely recites partitioning cells to be 

presented as a spreadsheet, referencing in one cell of a 

page a formula referencing a second page, and saving the 

pages such that they appear as being stored as one file. 

These limitations merely recite the method of implementing the abstract idea itself and thus fail under Alice step 

two. Therefore, we conclude that claim 1 of the 

’551 patent is ineligible under § 101.

III

Finally, we turn to the ’146 patent, which is directed 

to a method of tracking changes in three-dimensional 

spreadsheets. Beginning at Alice step one, we agree with 
DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 23

the district court that these claims are directed to the 

abstract idea of collecting spreadsheet data, recognizing 

changes to spreadsheet data, and storing information 

about the changes. 

The district court considered claims 1 and 26 representative of all asserted claims of the ’146 patent. 

See District Court Op., 211 F. Supp. 3d at 680. At their 

core, these claims recite tracking changes in a spreadsheet by: (1) creating a base version of a spreadsheet,

(2) creating a new version of the spreadsheet, and 

(3) determining which cells of data have changed by 

comparing the new and base versions. The concept of 

manually tracking modifications across multiple sheets is 

an abstract idea. The mere automation of this process 

does not negate its abstraction. Unlike claim 12 of the 

’259 patent, nothing in the ’146 patent’s claims viewed in 

light of the specification convinces us that the claimed 

method improves spreadsheet functionality in a specific 

way sufficient to render the claims not abstract. 

We agree with the district court that these claims are 

akin to those we held ineligible in Content Extraction. 

There, the claims were directed to methods of extracting 

data from hard-copy documents using an automated 

scanner, recognizing information from the extracted data, 

and storing that data in memory. Content Extraction, 

776 F.3d at 1345, 1347. We see no material difference in 

the level of abstraction here. The ’146 patent’s claims 

recite determining changes to spreadsheets by comparing 

the cells in two versions of the spreadsheet and storing 

that information. We reject DET’s attempt to distinguish 

Content Extraction on the ground that it involved a business method. Regardless of the field of the technology, 

the claims at issue here are sufficiently similar to those in 

Content Extraction for us to conclude that the claims of 

the ’146 patent are also abstract. As in Content Extraction, we hold that the asserted claims of the ’146 patent 
24 DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, recognizing, 

and storing the recognized data in memory. Id. at 1347. 

We also conclude that the asserted claims of the 

’146 patent do not recite an inventive concept under Alice 

step two. The claims recite the generic steps of creating a 

base version of a spreadsheet, creating a new version of 

the spreadsheet, and determining changes made to the 

original version. These claims do not recite anything 

“more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while 

adding the words ‘apply it.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 

(alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72). 

“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot 

transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patenteligible invention.” Id. at 2358. We have considered 

DET’s arguments that other claims of the ’146 patent, 

including claims 27 and 28, provide an additional inventive concept and find them unpersuasive.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that, with the 

exception of claim 1 of the ’551 patent, the asserted claims 

of the Tab Patents are not directed to patent-ineligible 

subject matter under Alice step one and therefore satisfy 

§ 101. We determine, however, that the asserted claims 

of the ’146 patent are directed to an abstract idea, provide 

no inventive concept, and are therefore ineligible under 

§ 101. 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, AND

REMANDED 

COSTS

No costs.