Case: 16-120 Document: 2-4 Page: 592 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`
`
`
`
` July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The following examples should be used in conjunction with the 2014 Interim Guidance on
`
`
` Subject Matter Eligibility (2014 IEG). As the examples are intended to be illustrative only,
` they should be interpreted based on the fact patterns set forth below. Other fact patterns
`
`
`
`
` may have different eligibility outcomes. While some of the fact patterns draw from U.S.
`
`
`
` Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisions, each of the
`
` examples shows how claims should be analyzed under the 2014 IEG. All of the claims are
`
`analyzed for eligibility in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation.
`Note that the examples herein are numbered consecutively beginning with number 21,
`because 20 examples were previously issued. A comprehensive index of all examples for
` use with the 2014 IEG is provided in Appendix 2 to the July 2015 Update.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Transmission Of Stock Quote Data
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 21.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The following hypothetical claims and background are modeled after the technology in
`
`
`
`
` Google Inc. v. Simpleair, Inc., Covered Business Method Case No. CBM 2014‐00170 (Jan. 22,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2015), but are revised to emphasize certain teaching points. The patent at issue was U.S.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,035,914 entitled “System and Method for Transmission of Data.” Hypothetical
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and does not have additional elements that amount to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`significantly more than the abstract idea. Hypothetical claim 2 also recites an abstract idea
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`but does contain additional elements that amount to significantly more because there are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`technological environment.
`
`
`
`Background
`
`
`
`
`
`The invention is directed to a stock quote alert subscription service where subscribers
`
`
`
`
`receive customizable stock quotes on their local computers from a remote data source. At
`
`
`the time of the invention, stock quote subscription services over the Internet were known
`
`in the art. However, existing services experienced challenges when attempting to notify a
`
`subscriber whose computer was offline (not connected to the Internet) at the time of the
`
`alert, since many stock quotes are time sensitive. Further, many previous subscription
`
`services simply transmitted all available stock quote information to the user at a given
`
`
`
`
`time, which required the subscriber to sort through large amounts of data to identify
`
`
`
`
`
`relevant stock quotes, and often sent information at an inconvenient time (e.g., after the
`
`
`
`
`
`stock exchanges are closed). The stock quote alert subscription service of the present
`invention addresses these problems.
`
`
`
`During enrollment to the subscription service, the subscriber provides preference
`
`
`
`information in the form of stocks of interest, stock price threshold (e.g., when the price
`
`
`
`
`reaches $100 per share), a destination address of a wireless device (e.g., a number for a
`
`
`cellular phone, pager or PDA), preferred format of the alert, and a transmission schedule
`
`
`
`indicating the time/date that alerts should be sent. The subscription service uses a
`
`
`
`
`transmission server to receive data from a data source and send selected data to
`
`
`
`
`
`subscribers. The transmission server
`includes a memory, a transmitter, and a
`
`
`
`microprocessor. The subscription service provides a stock viewer application to
`
`subscribers for installation on their individual computers. After a subscriber enrolls, the
`
`
`
`
`service receives stock quote information sent from a data source to the transmission
`
` 
`1
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Page 1 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2125
`IBG ET AL. v. TRADING TECH
`CBM2016-00032
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-4 Page: 593 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`
`
`
`
` July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples
`
`
` server. The server filters the stock quote information based upon the subscriber preference
`
`
` information that is stored in memory on the server. That is, the server compares the
`
`
` received stock quote information to the stored stocks of interest and stock price threshold
`
`
`
` preferences to determine which stock quotes to drop and which to further process. Next, a stock quote alert is built containing the filtered stocks’ name and price information and a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` universal resource locator (URL) to a web page at the data source which contains further
`
`
`
`
`
`
`information on the stock quote. The alert is then formatted into data blocks based upon the
`
`
` alert format preference information. Subsequently, the formatted data blocks are transmitted to the subscriber’s wireless device in accordance with the transmission
`
` schedule. After receiving the alert, the subscriber can connect the wireless device to the
`
`
`subscriber’s computer. The alert causes the subscriber’s computer to auto‐launch the stock
`
` viewer application provided by the service to display the alert. When connected to the
`
`
`
`
` Internet, the subscriber may then click on the URL in the alert to use the stock viewer
`
`
`
` application to access more detailed information about the stock quote from the data
`
`
`
`source.
`
` Claims
`
`1. A method of distributing stock quotes over a network to a remote subscriber computer,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the method comprising:
`
`receiving stock quotes at a transmission server sent from a data source over the
`
`Internet, the transmission server comprising a microprocessor and memory that stores the
`
`remote subscriber’s preferences for information format, destination address, specified
`stock price values, and transmission schedule, wherein the microprocessor
`filters the received stock quotes by comparing the received stock quotes to the
`
`
`
`specified stock price values;
` generates a stock quote alert from the filtered stock quotes that contains a stock
`
` name, stock price and a universal resource locator (URL), which specifies the location of
`
`
`
`the data source;
`
`
`
`formats the stock quote alert into data blocks according to said information format;
`
`and
` transmits the formatted stock quote alert to a computer of the remote subscriber
`
`
`based upon the destination address and transmission schedule.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. A method of distributing stock quotes over a network to a remote subscriber computer,
`
`the method comprising:
`
`
`providing a stock viewer application to a subscriber for installation on the remote
`subscriber computer;
` receiving stock quotes at a transmission server sent from a data source over the
`
` Internet, the transmission server comprising a microprocessor and a memory that stores
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`2
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Page 2 of 22
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-4 Page: 594 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`
`
`
`
` July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the remote subscriber’s preferences for information format, destination address, specified
`stock price values, and transmission schedule, wherein the microprocessor
`
`
`
` filters the received stock quotes by comparing the received stock quotes to the
`specified stock price values;
` generates a stock quote alert from the filtered stock quotes that contains a stock
`
` name, stock price and a universal resource locator (URL), which specifies the location of
`
`
`
`the data source;
` formats the stock quote alert into data blocks according to said information format;
`
`
`
`
` and
` transmits the formatted stock quote alert over a wireless communication channel to
`
` a wireless device associated with a subscriber based upon the destination address and
`
`
`transmission schedule,
`
` wherein the alert activates the stock viewer application to cause the stock quote alert to display on the remote subscriber computer and to enable connection via the URL to
`
`
` the data source over the Internet when the wireless device is locally connected to the
`
`
` remote subscriber computer and the remote subscriber computer comes online.
`
`
`Analysis
`
`Claim 1: Ineligible
` The claim recites a series of acts for distributing stock quotes to selected remote devices.
`
` Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention
`
`(Step 1: YES).
` Next, the claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The
`
`
`
`
`
` claim recites the steps of receiving, filtering, formatting and transmitting stock quote
`
` information. In other words, the claim recites comparing and formatting information for
`
`
`
` transmission. This is simply the organization and comparison of data which can be
`
`
`
`
`
` performed mentally and is an idea of itself. It is similar to other concepts that have been
`
`
`
`
`
` identified as abstract by the courts, such as using categories to organize, store and transmit
`
`
` information in Cyberfone, or comparing new and stored information and using rules to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` identify options in SmartGene. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A:
`
`
`
`YES).
`
` Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination
`
`
`
`
`
` of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the
`
`
`
`
`exception. The claim recites the additional limitations of using a transmission server with a
`memory that stores subscriber preferences, a transmitter that receives and sends
`
`
`information over the Internet, and a microprocessor that performs the generic functions of
`
`
`
`comparing and formatting information. The transmission server is recited at a high level of
`
`
`
`
`generality and its broadest reasonable interpretation comprises only a microprocessor,
`
`memory and transmitter to simply perform the generic computer functions of receiving,
`
`
`processing and transmitting information. Generic computers performing generic computer
`
`functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Finally, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`3
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Page 3 of 22
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-4 Page: 595 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`
`
`
`
` July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Internet limitations are simply a field of use that is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a
`
`
` particular technological environment and, so do not add significantly more. Viewing the
`
`
`
`
`
` limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the
`
`
`
`
`
` limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination,
`
`
` the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more
`
`than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
`
` A rejection of claim 1 should identify the exception by pointing to the filtering, generating
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` and formatting steps and explain that the comparing and formatting of information is a mental process that is similar to the concepts that courts have previously found abstract.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The rejection should also identify the additional limitations regarding the transmission
`
` server and explain why those limitations comprise only a generic computer performing
`
`
`generic computer functions that do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed method.
`Claim 2: Eligible
` The claim recites a series of acts for distributing stock quotes to selected remote devices.
`
`Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention
`
`(Step 1: YES).
`The claim is then analyzed to determine if the claim is directed to a judicial exception. As
`
`
`
`
`discussed above, the recited steps of comparing and organizing data for transmission are a
`mental process and similar to other concepts found to be abstract by the courts. The claim
`
`
`
`is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
`Next, the claim as a whole is evaluated to determine if there are additional limitations that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional
`
`
`
`
`
`limitations of using a transmission server with a microprocessor and a memory to store
`
`subscriber preferences, transmitting a stock quote alert from the transmission server over
`
`
`
`a data channel to a wireless device, and providing a stock viewer application that causes
`
`
`
`
`
`the stock quote alert to display on the subscriber computer and enables a connection from
`
`
`
`
`
`the subscriber computer to the data source over the Internet when the subscriber
`
`
`computer comes online. It is noted that, as discussed above, some of the limitations when
`
`
`
`
`viewed individually do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (such as
`
`storing subscriber preferences or transmitting an alert). However, when looking at the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`additional limitations as an ordered combination, the invention as a whole amounts to
`
`
`
`
`significantly more than simply organizing and comparing data. The claimed invention
`
`
`addresses the Internet‐centric challenge of alerting a subscriber with time sensitive
`
`
`information when the subscriber’s computer is offline. This is addressed by transmitting
`
`
`
`the alert over a wireless communication channel to activate the stock viewer application,
`
`
`
`which causes the alert to display and enables the connection of the remote subscriber
`
`
`
`
`computer to the data source over the Internet when the remote subscriber computer
`
`comes online. These are meaningful limitations that add more than generally linking the
`
`
`
`
`
`use of the abstract idea (the general concept of organizing and comparing data) to the
`
`
`
`Internet, because they solve an Internet‐centric problem with a claimed solution that is
`
`necessarily rooted in computer technology, similar to the additional elements in DDR
`
`
`
`Holdings. These limitations, when taken as an ordered combination, provide
`
`
`
` 
`4
`
` 
`
` 
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 22
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-4 Page: 596 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`
`
`
`
` July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples
`
`
` unconventional steps that confine the abstract idea to a particular useful application.
`
`
`
`
` Therefore, the claim recites patent eligible subject matter (Step 2B: YES).
`
` If the examiner believes that the record would benefit from clarification, remarks could be
`
`
`
`
` added to an Office action or reasons for allowance indicating that the claim recites the
`
`
` abstract idea of comparing and organizing data for transmission. However, the claim is
`
`
`
`
` eligible because it recites additional limitations that when considered as an ordered
`
`
`
` combination demonstrates a technologically rooted solution to an Internet‐centric problem
`
` and thus amounts to significantly more than comparing and organizing information for
`
`transmission.
`
`
`
`
`
` Graphical User Interface For Meal Planning
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 22.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The following claim was found ineligible by the Southern District of New York, and the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in Dietgoal Innovations LLC v. Bravo Media LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`599 Fed. Appx. 956 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2015). The patent at issue was U.S. Patent 6,585,516. The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not amount to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`significantly more than the abstract idea, but merely implement the idea using generic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`computer technology. The exemplary analysis shows how an examiner would apply the 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IEG analysis to the claim when making a rejection.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Background
`The invention addresses a way to solve the issue of obesity, specifically by using visuals to
`
`
`assist users to follow diet programs designed by health professionals for the purpose of
`
`
`
`modifying diet behavior. In particular, the invention is a computer system that “includes[s]
`
`
`
`
`a User Interface (UI), a Meal Database, a Food Database, Picture Menus and Meal Builder.”
`
`
`
`
`The UI functions to receive commands from the user and display results to the user. The
`
`
`
`Food and Meal Databases are databases of food information and preselected combinations
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of foods that have been compiled into a single repository. The Picture Menus display
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pictures of meals on the UI so the user can make a plan by mixing and matching foods to
`
`
`
`meet customized eating goals. The Meal Builder permits the user to design meals and view
`
`
`the impact of the food choices on customized eating goals in real time. In practice, the
`invention permits a user to choose meals for a particular day, as well as modify one or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`more of the meals to create new meals, while seeing the impact on their dietary plan. The
`
`object of the invention is to influence a person’s eating behavior.
`
`
`Claim
`
`2. A system of computerized meal planning, comprising:
`
`a User Interface;
`a Database of food objects; and
`
`
`
`a Meal Builder, which displays on the User Interface meals from the Database and
`
`
`
`
`wherein a user can change content of said meals and view the resulting meals’ impact on
`customized eating goals.
`
` 
`5
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Page 5 of 22
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-4 Page: 597 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`
`
`
`
` July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Analysis
`Claim 2: Ineligible.
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim encompasses a computer system (e.g.,
`
` hardware such as a processor and memory) that implements a user interface, a database,
`
`
` and a food data selection program. The system comprises a device or set of devices and,
`
`
`therefore, is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
`The claim is then analyzed to determine if the claim is directed to a judicial exception. The
`
`
`
` claim recites a system for selecting and modifying meals based upon dietary goals. In other
`
`
`
`
`
`
` words, the claim describes a process of meal planning. Meal planning is the organization
`
`
`
`
`and comparison of information to develop a guideline for eating. It is a mental process of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`managing behavior that could be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` and paper. Such a basic concept is similar to other mental processes found abstract by the
`
`
`
`
`courts such as comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SmartGene, and obtaining and comparing intangible data in Cybersource. Therefore, claim 2
`
`
`is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
`Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that
`
`
`
`individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly
`
`
`more than the abstract idea. The only additional limitations in the claim relate to
`
`
`computerization of meal planning with an interface, a database of food objects, and a “meal
`
`builder,” which is a computer program that allows selection and comparison of food data.
`
`
`
`The meal builder would require a processor and memory in order to perform basic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`computer functions of accepting user input, retrieving information from a database,
`
`
`
`manipulating that information and displaying the results. These components are not
`
`
`
`
`
`explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality. The
`
`
`interface is also recited at a high level of generality with the only required function of
`
`
`displaying, which is a well‐known routine function of interfaces. Further, the database
`
`
`
`performs only its basic function of storing information, which is common to all databases.
`
`
`
`
`Thus, the recited generic computer components perform no more than their basic
`
`computer functions. These additional elements are well‐understood, routine and
`
`
`conventional limitations that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea
`
`
`
`of meal planning on a computer. Taking these computer limitations as an ordered
`
`
`combination adds nothing that is not already present when the elements are taken
`
`
`
`
`
`individually. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited
`
`
`
`
`abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
`A rejection of this claim should identify the abstract idea of selecting meals for a
`
`
`customized eating goal, which is similar to concepts of obtaining and comparing data that
`
`
`were found to be abstract by the courts. The rejection should also identify the additional
`
`
`
`elements and explain the reasons why they amount to no more than merely implementing
`
`
`
`the idea of meal planning using generic computer components.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`6
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Page 6 of 22
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-4 Page: 598 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`
`
`
`
` July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples
`
`
` Graphical User Interface For Relocating Obscured Textual Information
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 23.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The following claims are hypothetical. Claim 1 demonstrates a claim that is not directed to an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` abstract idea. Claims 2 and 3 are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite significantly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` more. Claim 4 recites an abstract idea, but there are additional limitations in the claim that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Background
`
`
`
`
`
`The invention relates to a graphical user interface (GUI). A GUI manages the interaction
`
`
`
`between a computer system and a user through graphical elements such as windows on a
`
`
`
`
`display. Windows display various types of outputs for various computer processes and
`
`
`may contain controls to accept user input for those processes. In some instances, multiple
`
`windows are displayed at the same time; due to limited display space, however, the
`windows may overlap and obscure the content of underlying windows.
`
`
`In the instant application, the inventor has improved upon previous GUIs by dynamically
`
`relocating obscured textual information of an underlying window to become automatically
`
`
`
`
`viewable to the user. In particular, in a graphical user interface that comprises multiple
`
`windows, the invention continuously monitors the boundaries of the windows to ascertain
`
`
`an overlap condition indicating that the windows overlap such that the textual information
`
`
`
`of an underlying window is obscured from a user’s view by the overlapping window. Only
`
`
`
`
`
`when the textual information of the underlying window is detected to be obscured, the
`invention re‐formats and moves the textual information in the underlying window to an
`
`
`unobscured portion of the underlying window so that the textual information is viewable
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by the user. When the overlap condition no longer exists, the textual information is
`returned to its original format and location.
`The inventor’s process is performed by modifying the vertical and horizontal margins of
`
`the underlying window in accordance with the overlap and utilizing a word wrap function
`
`to wrap the text around the obscured area based upon the new margins, and, where
`
`
`
`
`
`necessary, reducing the text size to permit the entirety of the textual information to be
`
`
`
`
`viewable in the unobscured portion. The textual information is scaled based upon a scaling
`
`
`
`
`
`
`factor that is calculated using a mathematical algorithm. First, an area of the underlying
`window and an area of the unobstructed portion of the underlying window are calculated.
`
`
`
`Next, the scaling factor is calculated which is proportional to the difference in area between
`
`
`the underlying window and the unobstructed portion of the underlying window. Finally,
`
`
`
`
`
`the font size of the textual information is changed in accordance with the scaling factor.
`
`The new scaled textual information is then moved as described above to the unobstructed
`
`
`portion of the underlying window. When the windows no longer overlap, the textual
`
`
`
`
`
`information is returned to its original format and location by resetting the vertical and
`
`
`horizontal margins of the window to their original values and no longer applying the
`
`
`
`
`scaling factor to the font size. By permitting textual information to be dynamically
`relocated based upon an overlap condition, the computer’s ability to display information
`
`and interact with the user is improved.
`
`
` 
`7
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Page 7 of 22
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-4 Page: 599 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`
`
`
`
` July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples
`
`
` Claims
`
`
` 1. A computer‐implemented method for dynamically relocating textual information within
`an underlying window displayed in a graphical user interface, the method comprising:
`displaying a first window containing textual information in a first format within a
`
`
`
`
`graphical user interface on a computer screen;
` displaying a second window within the graphical user interface;
`
`
`constantly monitoring the boundaries of the first window and the second window to
`
`detect an overlap condition where the second window overlaps the first window such that
`
`
`
`
` the textual information in the first window is obscured from a user’s view;
`
`
` automatically relocating the textual information, by a processor, to an unobscured
`
`
`
`
`portion of the first window in a second format during an overlap condition so that the
`
`
`textual information is viewable on the computer screen by the user; and
` automatically returning the relocated textual information, by the processor, to the
`
`
`first format within the first window when the overlap condition no longer exists.
`
`2. A computer‐implemented method of resizing textual information within a window
`
`
`
`
`displayed in a graphical user interface, the method comprising:
`
`generating first data for describing the area of a first graphical element;
`
`generating second data for describing the area of a second graphical element
`
`
`containing textual information; and
`
`calculating a scaling factor for the textual information which is proportional to the
`
`
`difference between the first data and second data.
`
`
`
`3. A computer‐implemented method of resizing textual information within a window
`
`
`
`
`displayed in a graphical user interface, the method comprising:
`
`generating first data for describing the area of a first graphical element;
`
`generating second data for describing the area of a second graphical element
`
`
`containing textual information; and
`
`calculating, by the computer, a scaling factor for the textual information which is
`
`
`proportional to the difference between the first data and second data.
`
`
`4. A computer‐implemented method for dynamically relocating textual information within
`
`
`
`an underlying window displayed in a graphical user interface, the method comprising:
`displaying a first window containing textual information in a first format within a
`
`
`
`
`graphical user interface on a computer screen;
`displaying a second window within the graphical user interface;
`
`
`
` 
`8
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Page 8 of 22
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-4 Page: 600 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`
`
`
`
` July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples
`
`
`
`
`
`
` constantly monitoring the boundaries of the first window and the second window to
`
`
`
` detect an overlap condition where the second window overlaps the first window such that
`
`
` the textual information in the first window is obscured from a user’s view;
`
`
` determining the textual information would not be completely viewable if relocated
`
`to an unobstructed portion of the first window;
`
` calculating a first measure of the area of the first window and a second measure of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` the area of the unobstructed portion of the first window;
`
` calculating a scaling factor which is proportional to the difference between the first
`
` measure and the second measure;
`
`scaling the textual information based upon the scaling factor;
` automatically relocating the scaled textual information, by a processor, to the
`
`
`
` unobscured portion of the first window in a second format during an overlap condition so
`
`
` that the entire scaled textual information is viewable on the computer screen by the user;
`
`
` and
` automatically returning the relocated scaled textual information, by the processor,
`
` to the first format within the first window when the overlap condition no longer exists.
`
`
`Analysis
`
`Claim 1: Eligible.
` The claim recites a series of steps for relocating textual information in an underlying
`
`
` window to an unobscured portion of the underlying window. Thus, the claim is directed to
`
`
`
`
`
`a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
` Next, the claim must be analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Here, the claimed method relates to addressing a problem with overlapping windows
`
`
` within a graphical user interface. In particular, the claim recites dynamically relocating
`
`
`
`textual information within a window displayed in a graphical user interface based upon a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`detected overlap condition. When the windows overlap, textual information is reformatted
`
`
`and relocated to an unobscured portion of the underlying window; when the windows no
` longer overlap, the textual information is returned to its original format and location. The
`
`
`
`
`
`claim does not recite a basic concept that is similar to any abstract idea previously
` identified by the courts. For example, the claim does