Opinion ID: 4436325
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: The ’768 application relates to automated systems for personal financial planning. It describes the automatic adjustment of an individual’s savings, and the investment thereof, to increase the probability of achieving a projected income in retirement. The claimed systems utilize computers to receive, store and adjust savings and investment data. See, e.g., ’768 application at Fig. 4; see also id. at 13 (“A Computer attached to a Storage Device using Software automatically adjusts different elements such as the Amount Saved.”). Claim 1 is representative: 1 1. One or more computers with associated software programmed to: receive, at a processor and store using one or more storage devices employing memory, data corre- sponding to invested amounts and using one or more computers with associated software including algorithms and employing such software and algo- rithms to: utilize a projected amount of income at a future date for at least one person; automatically adjust the amount such person saves incorporating the projected income amount so that achieving such projected in- come amount is more likely; and 1 Mr. Greenstein does not separately argue the pa- tent- eligibility of claims 2–12. Therefore, we do not separately address the dependent claims. IN RE: GREENSTEIN 3 invest the saved amounts saved in one or more investment vehicles. ’768 application at cl. 1. The examiner rejected all pending claims of the ’768 application under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter; claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated; and claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious. S.A. 192–207. On appeal, the Board affirmed the examiner’s rejections. Decision, 2018 WL 4360561, at –7. Under § 101, the Board held the claims (1) are directed to the abstract idea of “[a]djusting the amount a person saves and choosing investments for the saved amounts, with the goal of saving enough for retirement,” and (2) provide no inventive concept beyond that abstract idea. Id. at –5. Mr. Greenstein appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). Because we conclude that all pending claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, we do not reach the merits of Mr. Greenstein’s arguments as to the Board’s rulings under §§ 102 and 103.