# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
DATA ENGINE TECHNOLO GIES 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

______________________

B ENJAMIN F. F OSTER , Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing PC, Houston, TX, argued for plaintiff

appellant. R epresented by A MIR H. A LAVI , I FTIKAHR A HMED , A LISA A. L IPSKI

.

D ARYL J OSEFFER , King & Spalding LLP, Washington, DC , argued for defendant

- appellee

. Represented by A MELIA G RACE Y OWELL ; J ONATHAN K. W ALDROP , M ARCUS B ARBER , J OHN W ALTER D OWNING , D ARCY L. J ONES , Kas owitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, Redwood Shores, CA ; D AN L. B AGATELL , Perkins Coie LLP, Hanover, NH

.

______________________DATA ENGINE TECHS

. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 2

Before R EYNA , B RYSON , and S TOLL , Circuit Judges

. S TOLL , 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 di rected to abstract idea s and fail to provide an inventive concept . W e conclude that

, with the exception of claim 1 of the ’551 pat ent, the a sserted 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 spread sheets. We agree, however, that the asserted claims of the ’146 patent

, reciting methods for tracking changes to data in sprea dsheets, are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, recognizi ng, and storing changed information. A fter a searching review, we find nothing in these claims that provide s an inventive concept sufficient to render the claims patent eligible

. Accordingly, we affirm

- in

- part,

reverse

- in

- part, and remand

. B ACKGROUND

I . The Tab Patents

The Tab Patents are titled “System and Methods for Improved Spreadsheet Inter face With User

- Familiar Objects ,” and claim priority to April 8, 1992

. 1 The Tab

1 Because the Tab Patents’ specifications are su bsta n tially identical, we refer only to the ’259 patent’s specific a tion.DATA ENGINE TECHS

. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 3

P atents 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 circumvent ing the arduous process of searching for, memorizing, and entering c omplex commands

. T he 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 spreads heets were not easy to use. ’259 patent col. 2 ll. 57

– 59

. U sers 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 appropr iate command for an operation, users would navigate
t hrough complex menu system s , with the proper co mmand 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. Becau se such commands were arbitrary (e.g., “/Worksheet Global Default Other Intern ational”)

, 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 wit h navigation through prior art three

- dimensional or mu ltipage ele ctronic spreadsheets. The Tab P atents 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 T ab Patent s provided a solution to this problem. Specifically, t he Tab Patents are directed to and claim a method of implementing a not ebook- tabbed interface, which allows users to easily nav igate thr ough three

- dimensional electronic spreadsheets. As shown in Figure 4G of the ’259 patent below , the TabDATA ENGINE TECHS

. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 4

Patents provide “an elect ronic spreadsheet system i nclud [ing] a notebook interface having a plurality of not ebook pages, each of which contains a spread of information cells, or other d esired page type.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 48

– 52. In contr ast to conventional electronic sprea dsheets , 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 not ebook tabs. Id. at col. 6 ll. 52

– 58 . “In this manner, co mplexities of the system are hidden under ordinary, everyday object metaphors,” providing a “highly intui tive interface

— one in which advanced features (e.g ., three

dimensionality) are easily learned.” Id. at col. 6 ll. 58

– 63.

Figure 2D below shows more closely an in dividual spreadsheet pag e 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 corr esponding tab for that page. Id. at col. 8 ll. 45

– 47. Thus, “instead of finding information by scrolling differe nt parts of a large spreadsheet, or by invoking multiple windows of a conventional three

- dimensional spreadsheet, the pr esent 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 prosecutio n , DET submitted contemporaneous articles showing the state of the art at the time of the invention and evidenc ing the significance of the claimed methods to spreadsheet technology

. For example, PC World , a leading computer magazine, published a front

pag e article , “ Quattro Pro for Window s : The Ultimate 3

- D Spreadsheet .” J.A. 981. The article reflected the indu stry’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 tou ts 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,DATA ENGINE TECHS

. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 6

and [that] intelligent command organization makes navigation efficient. ” Id. PC Wor ld published a nother cover story naming Quattro Pro “The Best of 1992

, ” again lauding it as “ the first spreadsheet to make three

dimensional modeling an accessible, useful analytic tool

. ” J.A. 1007. The article stated that “[o] ne of the key s 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 b y clicking on page tabs.” Id

. Similarly, in 1992, InfoW orld named Quattro Pro the product of the year for productivity applications. In doing

so, Info World wrote: We collected all the word processors, sprea dsheets, databases, personal information mana gers, and other productivity applications and asked ourselves a question: “Which of th ese programs really changed the way an individual user goes about hand l ing data? Does any one stand out as a productivity booster? ”
Our answer was Quattro Pr o for Windows. The reason: Borland designed this program from the ground up and examined how spr eadsheet users would work in a Windows environment. The notebook metaphor, with pages and tabs for diffe ren t worksheets, simplifies handling large wor ksheets . The “interface builder ” lets a user design custom dialog boxes without extensive macro pr ogramm ing. 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

- dimensiona l 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 p atent; claims 1

– 2, 5

– 7, 10, 13, and 35 of the ’545 p atent; and claims 1, 3, 6

– 7, 10, 12

– 13, 15, and 18 of the ’551 p atent. 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 sto ring and manipulating information, a computer

implemented method of representing a three

dimensional spreadsheet on a screen display, the method comprising:
displaying on said s creen display a first sprea dsheet page from a plurality of spreadsheet pages, each of said spreadsheet pages comprising an a rray of information cells arranged in row and co lumn format, at least some of said information cells storing user

- supplied information and form ulas operative on said user

- supplied information, each of said information cells being uniquely ide ntified by a spreadsheet page identifier, a column identifier, and a row identifier;
while displaying said first spreadsheet page, di splaying a ro w 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 di splay and indicating a single respective sprea dsheet page, wherein at leas t one spreadsheet page identifier of said displayed row of spreadsheet page identifiers comprises at least one user

settable identifying character;
receiving user input for requesting display of a second spreadsheet page in response to selectionDATA ENGINE TECHS

. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 8

with an in put device of a spreadsheet page ident ifier for said second spreadsheet page;
in response to said receiving user input step, di splaying said second spreadsheet page on said screen display in a manner so as to obscure said first spreadsheet page from displa y while contin uing 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 pa rticular spreadsheet page identifier comprising at least one user

- supplied identifying character, said cell reference comprising said at least one user

supplied identifying character for said particular spreadsheet pag e 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 I mproved Scenario Management in an Electronic Sprea dsheet .” 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 particular ly adept at managing “what -if ” scena rios i n 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 extreme s 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 multi tude of scenarios. ”DATA ENGINE TECHS

. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 9

Id. at col. 2 ll. 51

– 52. I nstead

, users had to “re sort 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 spr eadsheet 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 info rmation cells to be tracked and an Identify Scenario tool for automatically determining changes between a ca ptured 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 ind ependent claims 1 and 26 representative of all the asserted claims of the ’146 patent. See District Court Op.

, 211 F. Supp. 3 d at 680. Claims 1 and 26 recite: 1. In an electronic spreadsheet system for mode ling user

- specified information in a data model comprising a plurality of information cells, a method for automatically tracking different ve rsions of the data model, the method comprising:
(a) specifying a base set of information cells for the system to tr ack 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 cor responding ones in the base set.

***DATA ENGINE TECHS

. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 10

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 add itional information for only those portions dete rmined 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 “dire cted to the abstract idea of using notebook

- type tabs to label and organize sprea dsheets.” 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

per formed entirely in their minds, with the aid of colu mn ar pads and writing instruments. ” Id. at 679. T he 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, recogni z-DATA ENGINE TECHS

. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 11

ing changes to spreadsheet data, and storin g information about the changes, ” a nd more specifically, directed “ to input of info rmation in a (computerized) columnar pad, recognition of changes in later versions of the inputted information, and storage of information about the chan ges.” Id. at 68 0–81 (emphases omitted)

. The district court also held that additional claim limitation s 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).

D ISCUSSION

I We review the district court’s judgment on the plea dings under regional circuit law. Merck & Co. v. Hi

- Tech Pharmacal Co. , 482 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2007). T he Third Circuit reviews the grant of judgment on the plea dings de novo, “ accept [ing] all of the allegations in the pleadings of the pa rty against whom the motion is a ddressed 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 determi ned 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, 13 65 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Section 101 provides that “[w]hoever invents or di scovers any new and useful process, machine, manufa cture, 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 Int ernatio nal

, the Supreme Court articulated a two

- step test forDATA ENGINE TECHS

. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 12

examining patent eligibility under § 101. 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). “W e must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a paten t- ineligible concept. ” Id.
at 2355

. “Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and a bstract 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 s tep 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 co ncept
, however, we next consider Alice step two . In this step, we consider “ the elements of each claim both ind ivid ually and ‘ as an ordered combi nation’ to determine

w hether the additional elements ‘ tr ansform 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 ‘ in ventive concept’

— i.e. , an element or c om bination of elements that is ‘ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significan tly 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 Ta b Patents. O ur analysis begins at Alice step one, asking “whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent

- ineligible concept.” Id. at 2355. With the e xception of claim 1 of the ’551 p atent, w e holdDATA ENGINE TECHS

. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 13

that the asserted claims of the Tab Patents are directed to patent

- eligible subject matter

. A

W hen considered as a whole , and in light of the spec ification, representative c laim 12 of the ’259 p atent is not directed to an abstract idea

. Rather, t he claim is directed
to a specific meth od for navigating through three

dimensional electronic spreadsheets . The method pr ovid es a specific solution to then

- existing technological problem s in computers and prior art electronic sprea dsheets. The specification teaches that prior art computer spreadsheets were not user friendly. They required user s to “ master many complex and arbitrary operations. ” ’259 patent col. 2 ll. 28

– 29. User s had to search through complex menu sys tems to find appropriate command s to execute simple computer tasks , whi ch 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

av ailable in prior art computer spreadsheets , undercu tting 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 -d imensional spreadsheets, which allowed users to build spreadsheet workspaces

c onsisting of multiple two

- dimensional spreadshe ets
, 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 wor ksheet environment

. Id. at col. 3 ll. 44

– 52. T he improv ement allowed computers , for the first time, to provide rapid access to and process ing of information in di fferent spreadsheet s , as well as easy navigation in three

-DATA ENGINE TECHS

. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 14

dimensional spread sheets. The invention was appla uded by the industry for improving computers’ functionality as a tool able to instantly access all parts of complex three

dimensional electronic spr eadsheets . Numerous conte mporaneous articles attributed the improved three

dimensional spreadsheets ’ success to its notebook tab feature. 2
Representative claim 12 recites precisely t his tec hnical solution and improvement in computer spreadsheet functionality

. The claim recite s specific steps detail ing the method of navi gating through spreadsheet pages with in 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, r elying 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 Pittsbu rgh , 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 registratio n 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) m otion.DATA ENGINE TECHS

. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 15

one side of the first spreadsheet page, with each sprea dsheet 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 var ious spreadsheet pages through selection of the notebook tabs . The claim further requires a formula that uses the identifying character to operate on information spread b etween different spreadsheet pages that are identified by their tabs

. T he claimed me thod does not recite the idea of navigating through spreadsheet pages using buttons or a generic method of label ing and organi zing spreadsheets. Rather, the claims require a specific interface and implementa tion for navigating complex three

- dimensional spreadsheet s using techniques unique to computers. In this regard, c laim 12 is similar to the claims we held patent eligible in Core Wireless . There, the claims were directed to an improved display interface that a llowed users to more quickly access store d data and pr ograms in small

- screen electronic s , 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 thro u gh and switch views to find desired data and functions. Id.
at 1363. Core Wireless’s invention, however, improved the efficiency of these display interface s. By displaying only a limited list of common func tions and data from which to choose, t he invention spared users from time

consuming operations of navigat ing to, open ing up, and then navigat ing within, each separate application

. Id. Th e invention thus increased the efficiency with which users could navigate through various views and window s

. Id. W e 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 sum marizing and presenting info r-DATA ENGINE TECHS

. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 16

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

. W e concluded that the claims were patent eligible b ecause t he claims “recit e [d] a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface f or electronic devices ,” and thus were directed to “ an i mprovement in the functioning of computers

. ” Id

. at 1363

. C laim 12 of the ’259 patent similarly recites a meth od that differs from prior art navigation methods and “pr ovide [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 conven iently ‘flip through’ several pages of the notebook to rapidly locate info rmation of interest.” Id. at col. 8 ll. 51 –5 7. Moreover, a kin
to the claims in Core Wireless

, claim 12 recites a “ specific ” and “ particular ” manner of navigating a three

dimensional spreadsheet that improves the efficient functioning of computers

. See Core Wireless

, 880 F.3d
at 1362, 1363.

Likewise , c laim 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,
t he 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 i t took to place and execute a trading order. We agreed with the district court that “the cha llenged patents ‘solve [d] problems of prior graphical user interface devices . . . in the context of computerized tra ding[] relating to speed, accuracy and usabi lity. ’ ” 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 t he district court had explained, the claims were not merely directed to displa ying 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 specif ically 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 pr esen t ing 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. Cap it al One Financial Corp. , 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (hereinafter, “ Cap ital One ”) ; and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Inde mnity 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 tel ephones located outside the region” were ineligible because “[t]he concept of providing out -of- region access to regional broadcast con tent is an abstract idea .” 838 F.3d at 1255, 1258. T he claims were “entirely functional in nature

, ” and we found nothing in the claim s “directed to how to implement out -of- region broad casting.” Id. at 1258. Although the representative claim also recited “a grap hical user interface” for displaying a menu of available media options from which a user could select

, the limit a-DATA ENGINE TECHS

. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 18

tion was “conventional

, ” insignificant extra -solution activity and thus insufficient to confer patent eligibility. Id. at 1261. I n Capital One

, the claims were directed to

a n apparatus for managing eXtensible Markup Language (“ XML ”) documents . 850 F.3d at 133 8 . The invention allowed users to make changes to data in a “dynamic document,” which could then be dynamically propagated back in to an original XML document. Id. at 1339. We held those claims were “directed to the abstract idea of collecting, displaying, and m anipulating data.” Id.
at 1340. I n 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 132 6–2 7. T he claims did not recite any specific structure or improvem ent of computer functiona lity 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, mani pulating, or organizing information to improve navigation through three

- dimensional spreadsheets

. 3 Instead, t he

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 whi ch the system delivers streaming content from a network

based resource.” Id. at 1268. We held the claims inelig ible because “the concept of delivering user

- selected media content to portable devices is an abstract idea.” Id. at 1269. Although the claim recited a “customizedDATA ENGINE TECHS

. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 19

claim recites a specific structure (i.e., notebook tabs) within a particular spreadsheet display that performs a speci fic funct ion (i.e., navigating with in a three

dimensional 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 th e claims in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. 830 F.3d 1350, 135 3–5 4 (Fed. Cir. 2016) . And unlike ineligible claims that merely “collect[], organiz[e]

, and display

. . . information on a generic displ ay device,” claim 12 recites “a specific improv ement to the way computers

. . . operate.” S ee 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, 105 0 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And that inquiry requires that t he claims be read as a whole. See Alice , 134 S. Ct. at 2355 n.3. We conclude that, w hen 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. Al though 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 specif ic function

— an improved manner of navigating through the spreadsheet.DATA ENGINE TECHS

. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 20

claim 12 is directed to more than a generic or abstract idea as i t claims a particular manner of naviga ting three

dimensional spreadsheets

, implementing an improvement in electronic spreadsheet functionality.
Google avers that humans have long used tabs to o rganize information. It cites tabbed notebooks, binder div iders, file folders, and sticky Post

- it notes as well

known examples of organizing information using tabs. We agree that tabs exist ed outside the context of electro nic 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. T he que stion of abstraction is whether the claim is “d irected 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 apprec iate the functional improvement achieved by the specifica lly recited notebook tabs in the claimed method s. The notebook appearance of the tabs was specifically chosen by the inventors because it is e asily 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, t he notebook tabs are specific structures with in the three

- dimensional spreadsheet environment that allow a user to avoid the burdensome task of navigating through spreadsheets in separate wi ndows 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

- eligibleDATA ENGINE TECHS

. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 21

subject matter, we conclude that claim 1 of the ’551 p atent is ineli gible.
Claim 1 of the ’551 p atent recites: 1. In an electronic spreadsheet for processing a lphanumeric 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 three

dimen sional 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 presen ted to a user as a spreadsheet page; associating each of the cell matrices with a user

settable 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 ide ntifier 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.

W e conclude that under Alice step on e , this claim is di rected 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 impleme nta tion of a notebook tab interface. ’551 patent col. 24DATA ENGINE TECHS

. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 22

ll. 3– 4. C laim 1 of the ’551 p a tent is therefore not limited
to the specific technical solution and improvement in electronic spreadsheet functionality that rendered repr esentative claim 12 of the ’259 patent eligible. In stead, claim 1 of the ’551 patent covers any means for identifying electr onic spread sheet pages

. Because claim 1 of the ’551 p atent is directed to an abstract idea, we must turn to Alice step two to “dete rmine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent

- eligible application.” A lice

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

. The “mere recitation of a generic computer cannot tran sform a patent

- ineligible abstract idea into a patent

eligible invention.” Id. at 2358. “For the role of a co mputer 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, N at’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 o f the ’551 p atent fail to provide an in ventive concept. Claim 1 merely recite s 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 implemen tin g 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, w e turn to the ’146 patent, which is directed
to a method of tracking changes in three

- dimensional spreadsheets. Begin ning at Alice step one , w e agree withDATA ENGINE TECHS

. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 23

the district court t hat these claims are di rected to the abstract idea of collecting spreadsheet data, recognizing changes to spreadsheet data, and storing info rmation about the changes.

The district court considered claims 1 and 26 repr esentative 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 sprea dsheet by : (1) creating a base version of a spreadsheet, (2) creating a new vers ion 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 multi ple sheets is

a n abstract idea. The mere automation of this process does not negate its abstraction. U nlike 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 method s of extrac ting 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 spreadsheet s by comparing the cells in two versions of the spreadsheet and storing that information. We reject DET’s attempt to d istinguish Content Extraction on the ground that it involved a bus iness method. Regardless of the field of the tech nology, the claims at issue here a re sufficiently similar to those in Content Extraction for us to conclude that the claims of the ’146 patent are also abstract. As in Content Extra ction

, we hold that the asserted claims of the ’146 patentDATA ENGINE TECHS

. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 24

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 unde r 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 gener ic computer cannot transform a patent

- ineligible abstract idea into a paten teligible invention.” Id. at 2358. We have considered DET’s arguments that other claims of the ’146 pat ent, including claims 27 and 28, provide an additional i nventive concept and find them unpersuasive.

C ONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that , with the except ion of claim 1 of the ’551 p atent, 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 a re therefore ineligible under § 101.

AFFIRMED

- IN

- PART, REVERSED

- IN

- PART , AND REMANDED

C OSTS

No costs.